https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172126 The dispute centered on the eligibility for Cenvat credit for various items. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit, stating the items did not meet the definition of capital goods. The appellant argued the items were used in conjunction with capital goods or for repair purposes. The Tribunal found items used for repair, maintenance, and preventing steam leakage eligible for credit. Steel items for fabricating movable tanks were also deemed eligible. The decision was set aside due to failure to consider specific uses, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172126 The dispute centered on the eligibility for Cenvat credit for various items. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit, stating the items did not meet the definition of capital goods. The appellant argued the items were used in conjunction with capital goods or for repair purposes. The Tribunal found items used for repair, maintenance, and preventing steam leakage eligible for credit. Steel items for fabricating movable tanks were also deemed eligible. The decision was set aside due to failure to consider specific uses, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172126