https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783278 The CESTAT AT set aside the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on common input services under rule 6(3) of the CCR for March 2007-March 2008. It held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable since all material facts were already within the department's knowledge from the 2009 audit, and the later contrary view in the 2011 audit did not establish suppression. On merits, following the Telangana HC ruling in TIARA Advertisement, the Tribunal held that Revenue cannot unilaterally impose the 10% option under rule 6(3); the assessee is entitled to choose the appropriate option. The appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783278 The CESTAT AT set aside the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on common input services under rule 6(3) of the CCR for March 2007-March 2008. It held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable since all material facts were already within the department's knowledge from the 2009 audit, and the later contrary view in the 2011 audit did not establish suppression. On merits, following the Telangana HC ruling in TIARA Advertisement, the Tribunal held that Revenue cannot unilaterally impose the 10% option under rule 6(3); the assessee is entitled to choose the appropriate option. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783278