https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331236 The appeal was allowed as the Member (Technical) found that the denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods was unjustified. Despite some original documents being unavailable, there were no allegations of diversion of goods or non-availability of items for which credit was taken. The Member noted that the first 50% credit had been availed without objection, and there was no merit in denying the second 50% credit based on the reasons provided in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331236 The appeal was allowed as the Member (Technical) found that the denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods was unjustified. Despite some original documents being unavailable, there were no allegations of diversion of goods or non-availability of items for which credit was taken. The Member noted that the first 50% credit had been availed without objection, and there was no merit in denying the second 50% credit based on the reasons provided in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331236