https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250487 A prima facie arguable question arose on the scope of "capital goods" under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically whether components, spares and accessories used in capital goods must themselves fall within the specified tariff chapters. Because the dispute involved an arguable credit eligibility issue, the dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. The appellant was to be heard in the remand proceedings, no further pre-deposit was to be insisted upon, and the question of Cenvat credit eligibility was left open for fresh decision. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250487 A prima facie arguable question arose on the scope of "capital goods" under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically whether components, spares and accessories used in capital goods must themselves fall within the specified tariff chapters. Because the dispute involved an arguable credit eligibility issue, the dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. The appellant was to be heard in the remand proceedings, no further pre-deposit was to be insisted upon, and the question of Cenvat credit eligibility was left open for fresh decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250487