https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256422 The Tribunal ruled that the structural steel items used in the fabrication of machinery by the appellant were not eligible for Cenvat credit as they were considered supporting structures, not inputs. The Tribunal also held that the longer limitation period for Cenvat credit demand did not apply due to conflicting judgments, limiting the recoverable amount. The appellant was directed to make a specific deposit to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining balance of the demand, interest, and penalty. The decision considered evidence, legal provisions, and conflicting judgments to address the issues effectively. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:48:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256422 The Tribunal ruled that the structural steel items used in the fabrication of machinery by the appellant were not eligible for Cenvat credit as they were considered supporting structures, not inputs. The Tribunal also held that the longer limitation period for Cenvat credit demand did not apply due to conflicting judgments, limiting the recoverable amount. The appellant was directed to make a specific deposit to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining balance of the demand, interest, and penalty. The decision considered evidence, legal provisions, and conflicting judgments to address the issues effectively. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256422