https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124566 The appeal contested the disallowance of Cenvat credit on capital goods, specifically moulds and dies, imported by a company for manufacturing toothbrushes. The Revenue's objection was based on an interpretation of Rule 4(3) which the Tribunal found flawed. The Tribunal held that the rule does not exclude situations where capital goods are provided by entities for manufacturing purposes. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the utilization of Cenvat credit was not a key issue as long as eligibility was established. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:03:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124566 The appeal contested the disallowance of Cenvat credit on capital goods, specifically moulds and dies, imported by a company for manufacturing toothbrushes. The Revenue's objection was based on an interpretation of Rule 4(3) which the Tribunal found flawed. The Tribunal held that the rule does not exclude situations where capital goods are provided by entities for manufacturing purposes. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the utilization of Cenvat credit was not a key issue as long as eligibility was established. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124566