https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463013 CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CCR, 2004, as all services fell under Rule 6(5), allowing full credit utilization. The demand related to the opening balance of CENVAT credit declared in April 2011 was dropped due to lack of evidence of utilization. Amounts retained under revenue sharing were not taxable as Renting of Immovable Property Services, and parking fees were exempt. Discounts on medicine sales did not attract service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. Expenses in foreign currency related to non-taxable services or pre-2006 periods were not liable for service tax, and service tax already paid was acknowledged. The extended period of limitation and penalty demands were held unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2025 20:20:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463013 CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CCR, 2004, as all services fell under Rule 6(5), allowing full credit utilization. The demand related to the opening balance of CENVAT credit declared in April 2011 was dropped due to lack of evidence of utilization. Amounts retained under revenue sharing were not taxable as Renting of Immovable Property Services, and parking fees were exempt. Discounts on medicine sales did not attract service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. Expenses in foreign currency related to non-taxable services or pre-2006 periods were not liable for service tax, and service tax already paid was acknowledged. The extended period of limitation and penalty demands were held unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463013