https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349458 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s decision to reject the irregular CENVAT credit availed on items used for manufacturing hot blast stoves. The Tribunal held that the items were eligible for credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, based on legal interpretations and precedents, setting aside the impugned order as unsustainable in law. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349458 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s decision to reject the irregular CENVAT credit availed on items used for manufacturing hot blast stoves. The Tribunal held that the items were eligible for credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, based on legal interpretations and precedents, setting aside the impugned order as unsustainable in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349458