https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789793 Cenvat credit on common input services was held inadmissible where invoices were issued to multiple separately registered entities but one entity first availed the full credit and later cross-charged it to the others, since the rules did not permit that sequence for the appellant alone. The extended period of limitation was held unsustainable because the credit was disclosed in ST-3 returns, there was no suppression or misdeclaration, and the notice arose from an audit objection; the related penalty was therefore also set aside. The demand survived only for the normal period with applicable interest, with limited reconsideration required for quantification. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:04:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789793 Cenvat credit on common input services was held inadmissible where invoices were issued to multiple separately registered entities but one entity first availed the full credit and later cross-charged it to the others, since the rules did not permit that sequence for the appellant alone. The extended period of limitation was held unsustainable because the credit was disclosed in ST-3 returns, there was no suppression or misdeclaration, and the notice arose from an audit objection; the related penalty was therefore also set aside. The demand survived only for the normal period with applicable interest, with limited reconsideration required for quantification. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789793