https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=489 For deferred Cenvat credit on capital goods under Rule 4(2), "possession and use" was read to mean that the goods remain available with the manufacturer for intended use in production, not that they must be actually put to use before credit is taken. On that construction, balance credit was admissible and denial of credit was unjustified. The demand was also treated as time-barred because the credit position had been disclosed in monthly returns, leaving no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty. As a result, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the penalty could not survive. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=489 For deferred Cenvat credit on capital goods under Rule 4(2), "possession and use" was read to mean that the goods remain available with the manufacturer for intended use in production, not that they must be actually put to use before credit is taken. On that construction, balance credit was admissible and denial of credit was unjustified. The demand was also treated as time-barred because the credit position had been disclosed in monthly returns, leaving no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty. As a result, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=489