https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219529 The Tribunal upheld the grant of CENVAT credit to the assessee based on consistent decisions and valid documentation, rejecting the Department's arguments. It allowed credit for structural items used in fabrication where there was consistency between invoices and the Chief Engineer's statement. However, credit was denied for items not meeting the 'CENVATable' capital goods criteria. The Tribunal directed accurate quantification of credit for recovery and denied additional credit granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure compliance with its decision. The appeal was disposed of emphasizing the importance of consistent application of rules in determining CENVAT credit eligibility. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219529 The Tribunal upheld the grant of CENVAT credit to the assessee based on consistent decisions and valid documentation, rejecting the Department's arguments. It allowed credit for structural items used in fabrication where there was consistency between invoices and the Chief Engineer's statement. However, credit was denied for items not meeting the 'CENVATable' capital goods criteria. The Tribunal directed accurate quantification of credit for recovery and denied additional credit granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure compliance with its decision. The appeal was disposed of emphasizing the importance of consistent application of rules in determining CENVAT credit eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219529