https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764359 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's Gurgaon unit could avail CENVAT credit despite invoices being inadvertently addressed to their closed Bangalore office. The tribunal found that since Gurgaon was the only operational manufacturing unit, had paid service tax under reverse charge, and possessed valid payment challans under Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, the credit was rightfully available. The department failed to establish suppression with intent to evade tax, making the extended limitation period unjustified. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764359 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's Gurgaon unit could avail CENVAT credit despite invoices being inadvertently addressed to their closed Bangalore office. The tribunal found that since Gurgaon was the only operational manufacturing unit, had paid service tax under reverse charge, and possessed valid payment challans under Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, the credit was rightfully available. The department failed to establish suppression with intent to evade tax, making the extended limitation period unjustified. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764359