https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205647 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal determined that the adjudicating Commissioner wrongly restricted the utilization of credit for capital goods and specified services under Rule 6(5) by applying sub-rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which the representative argued only pertains to input duty credit and not to capital goods credit or credit for specified services. The department did not oppose the waiver of pre-deposit, considering the Ministry of Finance Circular and a Tribunal decision cited by the appellant. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205647 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal determined that the adjudicating Commissioner wrongly restricted the utilization of credit for capital goods and specified services under Rule 6(5) by applying sub-rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which the representative argued only pertains to input duty credit and not to capital goods credit or credit for specified services. The department did not oppose the waiver of pre-deposit, considering the Ministry of Finance Circular and a Tribunal decision cited by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205647