https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339505 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s order and providing consequential relief to the appellant, a textile processing company. The decision favored the appellant's entitlement to claim CENVAT credit for machinery purchased in 2005, despite authorities alleging duty exemption. The Judicial Member found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the right to credit when duty was paid to the supplier who then paid it to the Government. The judgment highlighted jurisdictional issues, Section 11D provisions, and the relevance of cited decisions in supporting the appellant's position. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339505 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s order and providing consequential relief to the appellant, a textile processing company. The decision favored the appellant's entitlement to claim CENVAT credit for machinery purchased in 2005, despite authorities alleging duty exemption. The Judicial Member found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the right to credit when duty was paid to the supplier who then paid it to the Government. The judgment highlighted jurisdictional issues, Section 11D provisions, and the relevance of cited decisions in supporting the appellant's position. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339505