https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236548 The appellant's challenge regarding the correctness of the capital goods Cenvat credit availed was unsuccessful as the tribunal found that the credit taken from manufacturing companies, not finance companies as required by Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not permissible. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a substantial amount within a specified period due to the disputed credit and interest liability. Additionally, the issue of merger of companies and transfer of Cenvat credit was addressed, emphasizing the appellant's continued liability for interest on the wrongly taken credit even after the merger. The eligibility of structural steel items for Cenvat credit was also disputed, leading to a directive for partial deposit and a stay on the recovery of the remaining amount pending appeal. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236548 The appellant's challenge regarding the correctness of the capital goods Cenvat credit availed was unsuccessful as the tribunal found that the credit taken from manufacturing companies, not finance companies as required by Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not permissible. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a substantial amount within a specified period due to the disputed credit and interest liability. Additionally, the issue of merger of companies and transfer of Cenvat credit was addressed, emphasizing the appellant's continued liability for interest on the wrongly taken credit even after the merger. The eligibility of structural steel items for Cenvat credit was also disputed, leading to a directive for partial deposit and a stay on the recovery of the remaining amount pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236548