<?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 (9) TMI 1996 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290511</link>
    <description>Denial of credit could not be sustained where the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation after the disputed period had already run. The record showed that similarly placed assessees had been allowed credit and that the Revenue had itself challenged those orders, reflecting a divergence of views on the issue. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period was not available, and the credit denial was held to be barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:05:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1996 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290511</link>
      <description>Denial of credit could not be sustained where the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation after the disputed period had already run. The record showed that similarly placed assessees had been allowed credit and that the Revenue had itself challenged those orders, reflecting a divergence of views on the issue. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period was not available, and the credit denial was held to be barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>