https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780659 CESTAT (Allahabad) partly allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned demand based on a subsequent decision could not invoke the extended period of limitation and must be confined to the normal limitation period. CENVAT credit is admissible only as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and claims beyond the prescribed one-year period are not allowable. Penalty under Section 78 and other penalties under Section 77 were set aside. Matter remanded to the original authority for re-quantification of the demand. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780659 CESTAT (Allahabad) partly allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned demand based on a subsequent decision could not invoke the extended period of limitation and must be confined to the normal limitation period. CENVAT credit is admissible only as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and claims beyond the prescribed one-year period are not allowable. Penalty under Section 78 and other penalties under Section 77 were set aside. Matter remanded to the original authority for re-quantification of the demand. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780659