https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331603 The appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on excise duty paid for a demo car used for attracting customers was denied as the demo car did not qualify as a capital good or input for providing output service. However, the appellant was deemed entitled to CENVAT credit for the input service related to the construction of the service center shed, as the construction was essential for providing authorized services. The Tribunal waived the penalty on both aspects due to the complexity of legal interpretation, allowing the appeal only concerning the CENVAT credit related to the construction service for the service center shed. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331603 The appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on excise duty paid for a demo car used for attracting customers was denied as the demo car did not qualify as a capital good or input for providing output service. However, the appellant was deemed entitled to CENVAT credit for the input service related to the construction of the service center shed, as the construction was essential for providing authorized services. The Tribunal waived the penalty on both aspects due to the complexity of legal interpretation, allowing the appeal only concerning the CENVAT credit related to the construction service for the service center shed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331603