https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128261 CENVAT credit was held inadmissible on a tapping ladle car classified under Tariff Heading 87.16, since that heading fell outside the definition of capital goods and the classification principle applied by the Supreme Court barred the claim. The demand was nevertheless held time barred because the goods were reflected in the monthly return and duty-paying documents, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established; extended limitation could not therefore be invoked. The commentary notes that credit failed on merits but the limitation defence succeeded. en-us Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:22:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128261 CENVAT credit was held inadmissible on a tapping ladle car classified under Tariff Heading 87.16, since that heading fell outside the definition of capital goods and the classification principle applied by the Supreme Court barred the claim. The demand was nevertheless held time barred because the goods were reflected in the monthly return and duty-paying documents, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established; extended limitation could not therefore be invoked. The commentary notes that credit failed on merits but the limitation defence succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128261