https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770125 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not liable to reverse Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) of CCR 2004 for alleged exempted services during 2016-17 and 2017-18. The tribunal found that job work activities performed by appellant for their own unit did not constitute "service" under Section 65(45) of Finance Act 1994, as service requires activity for "another person." Since no service was provided to third parties, provisions regarding exempted services were inapplicable. Additionally, the SCN issued on 15.01.2022 for periods up to May 2017 was time-barred beyond five years limitation. Extended limitation period was not invokable as department had prior knowledge of job work arrangement under Rule 4(6) permission. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770125 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not liable to reverse Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) of CCR 2004 for alleged exempted services during 2016-17 and 2017-18. The tribunal found that job work activities performed by appellant for their own unit did not constitute "service" under Section 65(45) of Finance Act 1994, as service requires activity for "another person." Since no service was provided to third parties, provisions regarding exempted services were inapplicable. Additionally, the SCN issued on 15.01.2022 for periods up to May 2017 was time-barred beyond five years limitation. Extended limitation period was not invokable as department had prior knowledge of job work arrangement under Rule 4(6) permission. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770125