https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343007 Cenvat credit on capital goods, input services and inputs used to set up a new unit could not be denied merely because common registration for the two units was obtained later, especially where the units were eventually covered by a single registration and the credit merged in the common account. A credit objection based on an amended input-service definition also could not be sustained when it was not specifically raised in the show cause notice and lacked a supporting factual finding. Clinker transfers between the original unit and the new unit, once treated as a single factory under common registration, were in the nature of captive consumption and qualified for the captive-consumption benefit, so no central excise duty was payable. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2017 08:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343007 Cenvat credit on capital goods, input services and inputs used to set up a new unit could not be denied merely because common registration for the two units was obtained later, especially where the units were eventually covered by a single registration and the credit merged in the common account. A credit objection based on an amended input-service definition also could not be sustained when it was not specifically raised in the show cause notice and lacked a supporting factual finding. Clinker transfers between the original unit and the new unit, once treated as a single factory under common registration, were in the nature of captive consumption and qualified for the captive-consumption benefit, so no central excise duty was payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343007