https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760021 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal against denial of CENVAT credit. The tribunal held that for Rs.3,58,58,266 with interest of Rs.48,132 already paid and reported by appellant in 2011, extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) was wrongly invoked since show cause notice should have been issued within one year under Section 11A(3). For remaining Rs.5,47,862 involving credit taken on photocopies of bill of entries, the tribunal followed precedent that procedural lapses cannot deny substantive benefits when inputs were actually received and used for manufacturing excisable goods, finding no revenue loss warranting extended limitation. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760021 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal against denial of CENVAT credit. The tribunal held that for Rs.3,58,58,266 with interest of Rs.48,132 already paid and reported by appellant in 2011, extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) was wrongly invoked since show cause notice should have been issued within one year under Section 11A(3). For remaining Rs.5,47,862 involving credit taken on photocopies of bill of entries, the tribunal followed precedent that procedural lapses cannot deny substantive benefits when inputs were actually received and used for manufacturing excisable goods, finding no revenue loss warranting extended limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760021