https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325856 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing CENVAT Credit on disputed items deemed as capital goods. The reliance on a previous judgment was rejected, and the Tribunal held that the extended period for demand should not apply due to conflicting interpretations of the law. The demand was set aside except for a minor portion within the limitation period, resulting in the appeals being allowed with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:36:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325856 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing CENVAT Credit on disputed items deemed as capital goods. The reliance on a previous judgment was rejected, and the Tribunal held that the extended period for demand should not apply due to conflicting interpretations of the law. The demand was set aside except for a minor portion within the limitation period, resulting in the appeals being allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325856