https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95227 Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT en-us Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95227 Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT Highlights Service Tax Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95227