<?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 (10) TMI 55 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399081</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied on limitation where the show cause notice relied on the extended period. The Tribunal held that there was no legal requirement for invoices to be filed before the department within a specified time, and the existence of divergent views at the adjudicatory level showed that the matter was not one of suppression or wilful default. On that basis, the extended period was not invokable and the demand denying credit was barred by limitation, in line with earlier coordinate-bench views.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2020 11:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 55 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399081</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied on limitation where the show cause notice relied on the extended period. The Tribunal held that there was no legal requirement for invoices to be filed before the department within a specified time, and the existence of divergent views at the adjudicatory level showed that the matter was not one of suppression or wilful default. On that basis, the extended period was not invokable and the demand denying credit was barred by limitation, in line with earlier coordinate-bench views.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>