<?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>2024 (8) TMI 473 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756769</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of appellant regarding CENVAT credit removal on capital goods. The dispute concerned whether 2.5% depreciation deduction should apply to 100% of credit from availing date or only 50% as per department&#039;s calculation. The tribunal held that under Rule 3(5A), deduction applies from &quot;date of availing credit&quot; and appellant&#039;s calculation applying deduction on full amount from initial credit date was correct. Additionally, the tribunal found the show cause notice time-barred as department failed to establish willful suppression, noting appellant maintained proper accounts and filed returns showing credit reversal. Appeal allowed on limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 473 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756769</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of appellant regarding CENVAT credit removal on capital goods. The dispute concerned whether 2.5% depreciation deduction should apply to 100% of credit from availing date or only 50% as per department&#039;s calculation. The tribunal held that under Rule 3(5A), deduction applies from &quot;date of availing credit&quot; and appellant&#039;s calculation applying deduction on full amount from initial credit date was correct. Additionally, the tribunal found the show cause notice time-barred as department failed to establish willful suppression, noting appellant maintained proper accounts and filed returns showing credit reversal. Appeal allowed on limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>