https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337454 The appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant as the Member (Judicial) found that the denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods exclusively used in urea production was incorrect. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the actual receipt date of capital goods for availing credit and the necessity of specific details in Show Cause Notices. The Appellant's argument regarding their dual manufacturing activities was accepted, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting of consequential relief, if any, as per law. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337454 The appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant as the Member (Judicial) found that the denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods exclusively used in urea production was incorrect. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the actual receipt date of capital goods for availing credit and the necessity of specific details in Show Cause Notices. The Appellant's argument regarding their dual manufacturing activities was accepted, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting of consequential relief, if any, as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337454