https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769051 The CESTAT New Delhi held that a service provider cannot simultaneously avail abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST and CENVAT credit on input services. The appellant incorrectly claimed both benefits without maintaining separate accounts as required under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for 2010-2011 was sustained for the normal period only. However, the tribunal found that extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as there was no deliberate intent to evade service tax, only suppression of facts being insufficient. Consequently, penalties under Section 78 were set aside. The appeal was partially allowed. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769051 The CESTAT New Delhi held that a service provider cannot simultaneously avail abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST and CENVAT credit on input services. The appellant incorrectly claimed both benefits without maintaining separate accounts as required under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for 2010-2011 was sustained for the normal period only. However, the tribunal found that extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as there was no deliberate intent to evade service tax, only suppression of facts being insufficient. Consequently, penalties under Section 78 were set aside. The appeal was partially allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769051