https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789795 Reversal of inadmissible Cenvat credit with interest, together with intimation to the Department, was treated as equivalent to non-availment for the purpose of Notification No. 01/2006-ST, so the pre-July 2012 abatement could not be denied merely because credit had earlier been taken. For the post-June 2012 period, tax paid under Rule 2A(ii) read with Notification No. 24/2012-ST, including the differential amount and interest, defeated the construction service demand. The separate demand for alleged excess Cenvat credit also failed after reversal with interest. Once the substantive tax and credit liabilities were neutralised, no penalty survived. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:04:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789795 Reversal of inadmissible Cenvat credit with interest, together with intimation to the Department, was treated as equivalent to non-availment for the purpose of Notification No. 01/2006-ST, so the pre-July 2012 abatement could not be denied merely because credit had earlier been taken. For the post-June 2012 period, tax paid under Rule 2A(ii) read with Notification No. 24/2012-ST, including the differential amount and interest, defeated the construction service demand. The separate demand for alleged excess Cenvat credit also failed after reversal with interest. Once the substantive tax and credit liabilities were neutralised, no penalty survived. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789795