<?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 1345 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785589</link>
    <description>Entitlement to Cenvat credit on transport insurance for goods sold FOR destination is the central issue. Applying the Board circular and High Court precedent, the tribunal allowed Cenvat credit for the period August 2014July 2015. A prior Tribunal final order denying credit for April 2006February 2011 remains binding, so credit is disallowed for that period and duty with interest confirmed. Invocation of extended limitation was set aside for April 2006March 2010 on the basis that suppression with intent was not established, but normal period demand stands. Penalty was quashed due to absence of mens rea and matter remanded for recomputation where directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:26:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=881706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1345 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785589</link>
      <description>Entitlement to Cenvat credit on transport insurance for goods sold FOR destination is the central issue. Applying the Board circular and High Court precedent, the tribunal allowed Cenvat credit for the period August 2014July 2015. A prior Tribunal final order denying credit for April 2006February 2011 remains binding, so credit is disallowed for that period and duty with interest confirmed. Invocation of extended limitation was set aside for April 2006March 2010 on the basis that suppression with intent was not established, but normal period demand stands. Penalty was quashed due to absence of mens rea and matter remanded for recomputation where directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>