<?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 (3) TMI 1245 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788490</link>
    <description>Rule 6(3A) permits reversal only of common credit attributable to exempted output and cannot be used to deny admissible credit relatable to dutiable clearances; proportionate reversal based on disclosed turnover was therefore treated as the correct approach. Adjudication must remain within the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, and liability cannot be confirmed on a broader or alternative basis not specifically pleaded. In a dispute arising from disclosed records and interpretation of the formula, the extended period of limitation was held unavailable because there was no fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty. Penalties were also found unsustainable for want of the requisite mens rea.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1245 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788490</link>
      <description>Rule 6(3A) permits reversal only of common credit attributable to exempted output and cannot be used to deny admissible credit relatable to dutiable clearances; proportionate reversal based on disclosed turnover was therefore treated as the correct approach. Adjudication must remain within the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, and liability cannot be confirmed on a broader or alternative basis not specifically pleaded. In a dispute arising from disclosed records and interpretation of the formula, the extended period of limitation was held unavailable because there was no fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty. Penalties were also found unsustainable for want of the requisite mens rea.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>