https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333086 The Tribunal held that the goods in question did not meet the definition of Capital Goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, it acknowledged that the original authority correctly identified their use for maintenance, overturning the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333086 The Tribunal held that the goods in question did not meet the definition of Capital Goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, it acknowledged that the original authority correctly identified their use for maintenance, overturning the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333086