https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246629 The case concerned the admissibility of CENVAT credit on structural items as capital goods. The adjudicating authority initially ruled against the respondent, finding the items did not qualify as capital goods. However, on appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) favored the respondent based on photographic evidence. The judgment criticized this reliance on photographs as inadequate proof and set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, ultimately allowing the Department's appeal. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:35:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246629 The case concerned the admissibility of CENVAT credit on structural items as capital goods. The adjudicating authority initially ruled against the respondent, finding the items did not qualify as capital goods. However, on appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) favored the respondent based on photographic evidence. The judgment criticized this reliance on photographs as inadequate proof and set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, ultimately allowing the Department's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246629