https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783657 Extended limitation for recovery of allegedly inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed the credits in prescribed returns and was not legally required to make further invoice-wise disclosures; absence of suppression barred invocation of the extended period, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside. For April-September 2011, credit on outdoor catering was denied due to the post-1.4.2011 exclusion in Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004, and credit on invoices lacking mandatory service description was disallowed under Rule 9(2). Credits relating to employee-personal-use services (accommodation and gym equipment AMC) were not allowed. A limited remand was ordered to verify alleged double-demand, and penalty under s.78 was set aside; appeal partly allowed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 12:23:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783657 Extended limitation for recovery of allegedly inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed the credits in prescribed returns and was not legally required to make further invoice-wise disclosures; absence of suppression barred invocation of the extended period, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside. For April-September 2011, credit on outdoor catering was denied due to the post-1.4.2011 exclusion in Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004, and credit on invoices lacking mandatory service description was disallowed under Rule 9(2). Credits relating to employee-personal-use services (accommodation and gym equipment AMC) were not allowed. A limited remand was ordered to verify alleged double-demand, and penalty under s.78 was set aside; appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783657