<?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 (7) TMI 586 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794700</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act applies where ineligible CENVAT credit is taken through suppression of material facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The Madras HC noted that the assessee did not disclose the contractual arrangement with the foreign service provider and instead took credit suo motu on maintenance charges rather than pursuing the refund route, which showed suppression. On that basis, the extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the recovery of credit was sustained. The Court also held that penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was attracted on the same facts, so the penal consequence was also upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:39:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 586 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794700</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under the Central Excise Act applies where ineligible CENVAT credit is taken through suppression of material facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The Madras HC noted that the assessee did not disclose the contractual arrangement with the foreign service provider and instead took credit suo motu on maintenance charges rather than pursuing the refund route, which showed suppression. On that basis, the extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the recovery of credit was sustained. The Court also held that penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was attracted on the same facts, so the penal consequence was also upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>