https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92267 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed. en-us Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:25 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92267 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed. Highlights Central Excise Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:25 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92267