<?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 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415660</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit under Rule 3 depends on receipt of duty-paid inputs in the factory, not on their commercial purchase. A procedural provision in Rule 7(4) cannot narrow the substantive entitlement to credit, and the later use of the term &quot;procured&quot; was treated as consistent with that intent. Inputs received from sister units under stock transfer invoices therefore could not be denied credit merely because they were not purchased in the ordinary sense. The demand and disallowance of credit were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2021 09:24:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415660</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit under Rule 3 depends on receipt of duty-paid inputs in the factory, not on their commercial purchase. A procedural provision in Rule 7(4) cannot narrow the substantive entitlement to credit, and the later use of the term &quot;procured&quot; was treated as consistent with that intent. Inputs received from sister units under stock transfer invoices therefore could not be denied credit merely because they were not purchased in the ordinary sense. The demand and disallowance of credit were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>