https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777839 CESTAT ALLAHABAD - AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held CENVAT credit for erection/commissioning/installation services at the appellant's brand shop (depot) is admissible as within the "place of removal," so denial was unsustainable. A reversal already made by the appellant for IPR/trading-related services (Feb 2013-Jan 2014) was acknowledged; demands for earlier periods were not justified. Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsupported and thus the extended-period demands and accompanying penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:39:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777839 CESTAT ALLAHABAD - AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held CENVAT credit for erection/commissioning/installation services at the appellant's brand shop (depot) is admissible as within the "place of removal," so denial was unsustainable. A reversal already made by the appellant for IPR/trading-related services (Feb 2013-Jan 2014) was acknowledged; demands for earlier periods were not justified. Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsupported and thus the extended-period demands and accompanying penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777839