<?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>2021 (1) TMI 382 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402790</link>
    <description>Denial of credit was held to be barred by limitation because the show cause notice invoked the extended period without a valid basis. The text notes that similarly placed assessees had been granted credit and the Revenue had itself taken divergent stands by filing appeals against those orders, so the extended period could not be applied. As the demand was raised beyond the normal limitation period on that basis, it was time-barred and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 382 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402790</link>
      <description>Denial of credit was held to be barred by limitation because the show cause notice invoked the extended period without a valid basis. The text notes that similarly placed assessees had been granted credit and the Revenue had itself taken divergent stands by filing appeals against those orders, so the extended period could not be applied. As the demand was raised beyond the normal limitation period on that basis, it was time-barred and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>