https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248849 The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on Welding Electrodes, initially claiming usage for installing capital goods but later asserting usage in manufacturing final products. However, they failed to conclusively prove this during proceedings. Despite citing legal precedents, the appellant's inconsistencies led to a lack of a strong prima facie case. Consequently, they were directed to deposit 25% of the demanded duty within a specified period. The judgment underscored the importance of consistency and strong evidence in such cases, ultimately denying the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on Welding Electrodes. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248849 The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on Welding Electrodes, initially claiming usage for installing capital goods but later asserting usage in manufacturing final products. However, they failed to conclusively prove this during proceedings. Despite citing legal precedents, the appellant's inconsistencies led to a lack of a strong prima facie case. Consequently, they were directed to deposit 25% of the demanded duty within a specified period. The judgment underscored the importance of consistency and strong evidence in such cases, ultimately denying the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on Welding Electrodes. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248849