<?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 (6) TMI 373 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361546</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit proceedings were barred by limitation where the credit availment was disclosed in ER-1 returns with supporting TR-6 challans. As the notice was issued beyond the normal period and the record showed no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement, the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2018 07:38:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 373 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361546</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit proceedings were barred by limitation where the credit availment was disclosed in ER-1 returns with supporting TR-6 challans. As the notice was issued beyond the normal period and the record showed no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement, the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>