https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341830 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit on M.S. items used for supporting structures as capital goods. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit was unjustified, considering the purpose for which the M.S. items were used and the absence of evidence of suppression of facts. The appellant's disclosure of credit availed on M.S. items in the ER-1 returns supported their case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to credit on M.S. items while upholding the liability on GTA services, granting the appellant consequential reliefs. en-us Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 May 2017 18:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341830 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit on M.S. items used for supporting structures as capital goods. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit was unjustified, considering the purpose for which the M.S. items were used and the absence of evidence of suppression of facts. The appellant's disclosure of credit availed on M.S. items in the ER-1 returns supported their case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to credit on M.S. items while upholding the liability on GTA services, granting the appellant consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341830