<?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>2020 (4) TMI 470 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394563</link>
    <description>Extended period of limitation was held not invokable where the assessee&#039;s credit entitlement had already been considered for the same period and similarly placed assessees had been allowed the credit. The prior view that divergent stands taken by the Revenue in connected matters did not justify invoking the extended limitation period was applied, so the denial of credit was treated as time-barred and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 470 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394563</link>
      <description>Extended period of limitation was held not invokable where the assessee&#039;s credit entitlement had already been considered for the same period and similarly placed assessees had been allowed the credit. The prior view that divergent stands taken by the Revenue in connected matters did not justify invoking the extended limitation period was applied, so the denial of credit was treated as time-barred and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>