https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769425 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for CENVAT credit irregularities. The tribunal held that extended limitation period was not justified as the appellant had not suppressed facts - the Range Officer's negligence in scrutinizing returns led to delayed detection during audit. On merits, Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules permits payment through account adjustments between parties with continuing business relationships, not requiring specific payment methods. The show cause notice failed to establish with evidence that appellant had not paid sub-contractors before availing credit. The entire demand was set aside on limitation grounds and lack of merit. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:53:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769425 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for CENVAT credit irregularities. The tribunal held that extended limitation period was not justified as the appellant had not suppressed facts - the Range Officer's negligence in scrutinizing returns led to delayed detection during audit. On merits, Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules permits payment through account adjustments between parties with continuing business relationships, not requiring specific payment methods. The show cause notice failed to establish with evidence that appellant had not paid sub-contractors before availing credit. The entire demand was set aside on limitation grounds and lack of merit. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769425