https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270001 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant's distinct roles as a manufacturer and service provider, with separate registrations, justified availing CENVAT credit for manufacturing and not for service provision. The denial of credit based on common ownership was deemed unjustified, emphasizing the separate legal frameworks governing the two roles. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellants in all three appeals. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2016 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270001 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant's distinct roles as a manufacturer and service provider, with separate registrations, justified availing CENVAT credit for manufacturing and not for service provision. The denial of credit based on common ownership was deemed unjustified, emphasizing the separate legal frameworks governing the two roles. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellants in all three appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270001