https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251308 The appeal before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was deemed maintainable as it did not involve questions related to the rate of duty or the value of goods, which are directed to the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Regarding the interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Court admitted the appeal to determine if the manufacturer was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on capital goods used in the manufacturing process involving both Ammonia and Carbon dioxide, ruling in favor of the manufacturer. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:21:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251308 The appeal before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was deemed maintainable as it did not involve questions related to the rate of duty or the value of goods, which are directed to the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Regarding the interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Court admitted the appeal to determine if the manufacturer was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on capital goods used in the manufacturing process involving both Ammonia and Carbon dioxide, ruling in favor of the manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251308