https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771634 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit utilization. The department disallowed credit following a company name change from one entity to another, invoking Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that Rule 10 applies only to factory transfers, ownership changes, or mergers, not simple name changes. The department's contradictory assumptions about registration status were rejected. Since the credit balance was undisputed and no procedural lapses were found, the substantial benefit of CENVAT credit could not be denied for a mere name change. en-us Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771634 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit utilization. The department disallowed credit following a company name change from one entity to another, invoking Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that Rule 10 applies only to factory transfers, ownership changes, or mergers, not simple name changes. The department's contradictory assumptions about registration status were rejected. Since the credit balance was undisputed and no procedural lapses were found, the substantial benefit of CENVAT credit could not be denied for a mere name change. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771634