https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772006 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside demand for CENVAT Credit and penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The case involved inadmissible refund claims under Notification 56/2002-CE where goods were not manufactured and area-based exemption was wrongly availed. Following precedent from identical facts in another case, the Tribunal rejected department's preliminary objection regarding pending matter before J&K HC. The impugned orders were held unsustainable in law and appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:24:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772006 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside demand for CENVAT Credit and penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The case involved inadmissible refund claims under Notification 56/2002-CE where goods were not manufactured and area-based exemption was wrongly availed. Following precedent from identical facts in another case, the Tribunal rejected department's preliminary objection regarding pending matter before J&K HC. The impugned orders were held unsustainable in law and appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772006