<?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 (10) TMI 328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779532</link>
    <description>CESTAT held the show-cause notice issued after an audit in 2020, which invoked the extended five-year limitation to deny Cenvat credit, was time-barred. Noting the appellant had been regularly registered and filing ER-3 returns, the Tribunal found the extended period could not be validly invoked for the impugned period. The demand for denied Cenvat credit, interest and equivalent penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779532</link>
      <description>CESTAT held the show-cause notice issued after an audit in 2020, which invoked the extended five-year limitation to deny Cenvat credit, was time-barred. Noting the appellant had been regularly registered and filing ER-3 returns, the Tribunal found the extended period could not be validly invoked for the impugned period. The demand for denied Cenvat credit, interest and equivalent penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>