https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779654 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that Cenvat credit claimed by the assessee is admissible. The Tribunal found payments were made prior to any proceedings under Section 73(4A), the 1% penalty indicated settlement rather than findings of suppression or wilful misstatement, and the renting-of-immovable-property issue was highly contentious in fora nationwide. Rule 9(1)(bb) disallowance could not be sustained. Because the contested credit remained unutilised, interest recovery was inappropriate and proceedings for interest were dropped. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779654 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that Cenvat credit claimed by the assessee is admissible. The Tribunal found payments were made prior to any proceedings under Section 73(4A), the 1% penalty indicated settlement rather than findings of suppression or wilful misstatement, and the renting-of-immovable-property issue was highly contentious in fora nationwide. Rule 9(1)(bb) disallowance could not be sustained. Because the contested credit remained unutilised, interest recovery was inappropriate and proceedings for interest were dropped. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779654