https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218430 The appellant, a confectionary manufacturer, sought cenvat credit for capital goods received under a rent agreement, contending eligibility under Rule 4(3). However, the agreement did not meet the criteria of a lease or hire purchase as required by the rule. Despite citing supportive judgments, the appellant failed to establish entitlement to the credit. The impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was upheld, with the appellant directed to make the necessary payments within six weeks. The stay petition was dismissed, and compliance was mandated by a specified future date. en-us Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218430 The appellant, a confectionary manufacturer, sought cenvat credit for capital goods received under a rent agreement, contending eligibility under Rule 4(3). However, the agreement did not meet the criteria of a lease or hire purchase as required by the rule. Despite citing supportive judgments, the appellant failed to establish entitlement to the credit. The impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was upheld, with the appellant directed to make the necessary payments within six weeks. The stay petition was dismissed, and compliance was mandated by a specified future date. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218430