<?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 (4) TMI 1822 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790753</link>
    <description>For the pre-01.04.2011 period, the broader input service definition was applied to services used directly or indirectly in manufacture and business activity, so housekeeping, gardening, vehicle repair, tour and travel, outward courier, interior decoration, construction, surface colouring/coating, fabrication and insurance were treated as eligible for Cenvat credit where they supported factory maintenance, operations, renovation, production or business use. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, an audit-based notice issued after the relevant period could not invoke the extended period without evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement, so the demand was time-barred and the related interest and penalty also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1822 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790753</link>
      <description>For the pre-01.04.2011 period, the broader input service definition was applied to services used directly or indirectly in manufacture and business activity, so housekeeping, gardening, vehicle repair, tour and travel, outward courier, interior decoration, construction, surface colouring/coating, fabrication and insurance were treated as eligible for Cenvat credit where they supported factory maintenance, operations, renovation, production or business use. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, an audit-based notice issued after the relevant period could not invoke the extended period without evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement, so the demand was time-barred and the related interest and penalty also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>