https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343882 The Judicial Member ruled in favor of the appellant, finding alignment with cited decisions and emphasizing the retrospective application of Notification No. 22/09. The ruling clarified that additional duties under various sections were eligible for CENVAT credit, rejecting the Revenue's argument for restricting credit. The impugned orders were set aside, allowing all appeals with consequential relief, based on the interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, inclusion of CVD, and reliance on judicial precedents. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jun 2017 06:23:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343882 The Judicial Member ruled in favor of the appellant, finding alignment with cited decisions and emphasizing the retrospective application of Notification No. 22/09. The ruling clarified that additional duties under various sections were eligible for CENVAT credit, rejecting the Revenue's argument for restricting credit. The impugned orders were set aside, allowing all appeals with consequential relief, based on the interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, inclusion of CVD, and reliance on judicial precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343882