https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346151 Cenvat credit on indigenous capital goods was held admissible to a 100% EOU on debonding where the competent authority had granted extensions, so the relevant debonding date was the extended date and the allegation of premature debonding failed. A corrigendum issued after the assessees had replied to the original show cause notices, and which materially altered their basis, was disregarded and could not sustain the demand. The Board circular and the consistent line of decisions recognising such entitlement supported the credit claim, and the later notification did not defeat credit already availed before its issue. The denial of Cenvat credit was therefore unsustainable and the demand could not be upheld. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:31:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346151 Cenvat credit on indigenous capital goods was held admissible to a 100% EOU on debonding where the competent authority had granted extensions, so the relevant debonding date was the extended date and the allegation of premature debonding failed. A corrigendum issued after the assessees had replied to the original show cause notices, and which materially altered their basis, was disregarded and could not sustain the demand. The Board circular and the consistent line of decisions recognising such entitlement supported the credit claim, and the later notification did not defeat credit already availed before its issue. The denial of Cenvat credit was therefore unsustainable and the demand could not be upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346151