TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The appellant was held not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on goods classified under tariff heading 8705, as such goods did not fall within the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period. The invoices issued by the manufacturer correctly reflected the classification and duty payment under heading 8705, which could not be disregarded by the appellant. The extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was found unjustified due to lack of evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts as required under the proviso to Section 73(1). Consequently, the demand of interest and penalty was unsustainable. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding the demand barred by limitation and rejecting the appellant's liability for CENVAT credit recovery, interest, and penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
