<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (1) TMI 40 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353304</link>
    <description>Non-availment of Cenvat credit before claiming refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE was treated as a compliance issue under the prescribed exemption mechanism, with one view holding that self-credit and refund were contrary to the notification but that revenue neutrality and bona fide mistake defeated interest and penalty. The contrary view insisted on strict compliance with the notification and held that taking self-credit beyond the permitted mechanism made the refund claim unsustainable, while still accepting that bona fide error justified deletion of interest and penalty. The Members disagreed on the refund demand and the impact of revenue neutrality, and the matter was referred to a third Member without a final conclusive holding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2018 08:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 40 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353304</link>
      <description>Non-availment of Cenvat credit before claiming refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE was treated as a compliance issue under the prescribed exemption mechanism, with one view holding that self-credit and refund were contrary to the notification but that revenue neutrality and bona fide mistake defeated interest and penalty. The contrary view insisted on strict compliance with the notification and held that taking self-credit beyond the permitted mechanism made the refund claim unsustainable, while still accepting that bona fide error justified deletion of interest and penalty. The Members disagreed on the refund demand and the impact of revenue neutrality, and the matter was referred to a third Member without a final conclusive holding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>