https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266081 The Tribunal remanded the case to consider the time-barred demand for CENVAT credit, focusing on the limitation issue. The original adjudicating authority dropped proceedings, citing decisions exempting duty on capital goods cleared after use due to absence of specific rules. The Commissioner(Appeals) decision lacked depth and dismissed the demand without proper analysis. The judgment favored the appellant, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and waiving the pre-deposit requirement. It was based on a comprehensive analysis of limitation, interpretation of rules, and judicial precedents supporting the appellant's position. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:23:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266081 The Tribunal remanded the case to consider the time-barred demand for CENVAT credit, focusing on the limitation issue. The original adjudicating authority dropped proceedings, citing decisions exempting duty on capital goods cleared after use due to absence of specific rules. The Commissioner(Appeals) decision lacked depth and dismissed the demand without proper analysis. The judgment favored the appellant, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and waiving the pre-deposit requirement. It was based on a comprehensive analysis of limitation, interpretation of rules, and judicial precedents supporting the appellant's position. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266081