https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241140 The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in favor of the respondent, allowing the credit on capital goods despite concerns raised by an alert notice about the supplier's activities. The judge found that the respondent had legitimately availed credit for duty paid on capital goods received in 2005, supported by physical verification of the goods in the factory. Despite the alert notice in 2008 regarding the supplier's activities, there was no evidence of fraudulent activity by the respondent. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the legitimacy of the credit availed by the respondent. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:45:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241140 The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in favor of the respondent, allowing the credit on capital goods despite concerns raised by an alert notice about the supplier's activities. The judge found that the respondent had legitimately availed credit for duty paid on capital goods received in 2005, supported by physical verification of the goods in the factory. Despite the alert notice in 2008 regarding the supplier's activities, there was no evidence of fraudulent activity by the respondent. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the legitimacy of the credit availed by the respondent. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241140