https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775820 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The tribunal held that the appellant did not suppress facts or evade tax by failing to include the value of raw materials supplied in the gross value charged, as the abatement claimed related to contracts for which no Cenvat Credit was availed. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable since the abatement was disclosed in returns, negating suppression. The tribunal clarified that Notification No. 1/2006-ST restricts Cenvat Credit only on inputs used for taxable services, not across all contracts. Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were also quashed, as simultaneous imposition was improper. Consequently, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:35:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775820 The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The tribunal held that the appellant did not suppress facts or evade tax by failing to include the value of raw materials supplied in the gross value charged, as the abatement claimed related to contracts for which no Cenvat Credit was availed. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable since the abatement was disclosed in returns, negating suppression. The tribunal clarified that Notification No. 1/2006-ST restricts Cenvat Credit only on inputs used for taxable services, not across all contracts. Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were also quashed, as simultaneous imposition was improper. Consequently, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775820