https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776703 CENVAT credit on the disputed input services was admissible because the services were substantially received before April 2011, when the wider pre-amendment definition of input services applied, and they were also covered under the post-April 2011 definition. The demand was additionally found unsustainable because it overlapped with another proceeding for the same financial year and was inconsistent with the earlier final order in the connected matter. The notice proposing denial of credit for 2011-12 was also held time-barred. On these grounds, the credit was allowed and the demand and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776703 CENVAT credit on the disputed input services was admissible because the services were substantially received before April 2011, when the wider pre-amendment definition of input services applied, and they were also covered under the post-April 2011 definition. The demand was additionally found unsustainable because it overlapped with another proceeding for the same financial year and was inconsistent with the earlier final order in the connected matter. The notice proposing denial of credit for 2011-12 was also held time-barred. On these grounds, the credit was allowed and the demand and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776703