https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267547 Cenvat credit on M.S. Rod used to manufacture tote boxes was admissible because the tote boxes functioned as material handling equipment within the factory for carrying, loading, unloading and heat-treatment movement of goods. The tote boxes were treated as capital goods used in the manufacturing stream, so the M.S. Rod qualified as input used in the manufacture of capital goods further used in the factory. Denial of credit under Rule 6(1) was unsustainable because the show cause notice proceeded on a different basis and the rule applies where the final product is cleared under exemption, which was not the position here. The credit denial was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267547 Cenvat credit on M.S. Rod used to manufacture tote boxes was admissible because the tote boxes functioned as material handling equipment within the factory for carrying, loading, unloading and heat-treatment movement of goods. The tote boxes were treated as capital goods used in the manufacturing stream, so the M.S. Rod qualified as input used in the manufacture of capital goods further used in the factory. Denial of credit under Rule 6(1) was unsustainable because the show cause notice proceeded on a different basis and the rule applies where the final product is cleared under exemption, which was not the position here. The credit denial was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267547