<?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>2025 (8) TMI 1396 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777208</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on railway freight was allowed where the consignor certified that corresponding credit had not been availed and the railway receipts contained the required particulars supporting the claim. The credit claim was accepted to the extent of the certified amount because the record established compliance for that portion. For the remaining disputed amount, verification of the certificate or other supporting documents was required before credit could be allowed. The consequential penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1396 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777208</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on railway freight was allowed where the consignor certified that corresponding credit had not been availed and the railway receipts contained the required particulars supporting the claim. The credit claim was accepted to the extent of the certified amount because the record established compliance for that portion. For the remaining disputed amount, verification of the certificate or other supporting documents was required before credit could be allowed. The consequential penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>