https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78339 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the duty demand while setting aside the penalty. It determined that the letter dated 18-5-2006 was not an assessment order but an internal communication. The duty liability on indigenously procured capital goods was upheld, irrespective of export obligations. Although the appellants could claim Cenvat credit, the penalty imposed was overturned due to miscommunication. The decision emphasized duty payment obligations over assessment order contentions and Cenvat credit entitlement. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:54:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78339 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the duty demand while setting aside the penalty. It determined that the letter dated 18-5-2006 was not an assessment order but an internal communication. The duty liability on indigenously procured capital goods was upheld, irrespective of export obligations. Although the appellants could claim Cenvat credit, the penalty imposed was overturned due to miscommunication. The decision emphasized duty payment obligations over assessment order contentions and Cenvat credit entitlement. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78339