https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244896 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order that denied CENVAT credit on MS angle, MS beam, etc., claimed as capital goods. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation should not be invoked as the eligibility of credit was in dispute during the relevant period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the disputed items was upheld. en-us Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:10:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244896 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order that denied CENVAT credit on MS angle, MS beam, etc., claimed as capital goods. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation should not be invoked as the eligibility of credit was in dispute during the relevant period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the disputed items was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244896