<?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>2026 (1) TMI 321 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784565</link>
    <description>Demand of excise duty based solely on sugar shortage detected on physical verification was held unsustainable because mere shortage, absent corroborative evidence, cannot establish clandestine removal; the duty demand on alleged clandestine clearance was set aside. Cenvat credit on steel items used for base-structure/shades/civil work was admissible since the LB view in Vandana Global stood reversed by HC precedent interpreting Rule 2(k) and its Explanation; denial of credit was overturned. Credit on capital goods could not be disallowed merely because receipt occurred after the factory became operational; credit was allowed. Credit on items cleared &quot;as such&quot; and related demands were barred as extended limitation was inapplicable on interpretational dispute; consequently, the entire SCN failed, normal period demand also fell. Penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:01:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 321 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784565</link>
      <description>Demand of excise duty based solely on sugar shortage detected on physical verification was held unsustainable because mere shortage, absent corroborative evidence, cannot establish clandestine removal; the duty demand on alleged clandestine clearance was set aside. Cenvat credit on steel items used for base-structure/shades/civil work was admissible since the LB view in Vandana Global stood reversed by HC precedent interpreting Rule 2(k) and its Explanation; denial of credit was overturned. Credit on capital goods could not be disallowed merely because receipt occurred after the factory became operational; credit was allowed. Credit on items cleared &quot;as such&quot; and related demands were barred as extended limitation was inapplicable on interpretational dispute; consequently, the entire SCN failed, normal period demand also fell. Penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>