https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770375 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal in its entirety, holding that cross-objections filed by appellants were maintainable despite the Commissioner's rejection. The tribunal found the show cause notice was time-barred as no evidence of willful suppression was provided to justify the extended limitation period. The court ruled that when an assessing authority exercises discretion not to impose penalty, revisional authority cannot impose penalty for the first time under Section 80. The appellant was entitled to denied Cenvat credit, and penalty imposition was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 08:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770375 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal in its entirety, holding that cross-objections filed by appellants were maintainable despite the Commissioner's rejection. The tribunal found the show cause notice was time-barred as no evidence of willful suppression was provided to justify the extended limitation period. The court ruled that when an assessing authority exercises discretion not to impose penalty, revisional authority cannot impose penalty for the first time under Section 80. The appellant was entitled to denied Cenvat credit, and penalty imposition was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770375