https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349689 The appellant's claim for Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in their chemical plant was rejected due to the one-year limit for availing credit under Rule 4(1)(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing the delay in availing credit beyond the prescribed period. However, the issue of compliance with natural justice was raised, leading to a remand to the original authority for a fresh decision to ensure procedural fairness and a comprehensive review of all aspects. The judgment emphasized the complexities of Cenvat credit eligibility, time limits, and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in decision-making processes. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:33:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349689 The appellant's claim for Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in their chemical plant was rejected due to the one-year limit for availing credit under Rule 4(1)(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing the delay in availing credit beyond the prescribed period. However, the issue of compliance with natural justice was raised, leading to a remand to the original authority for a fresh decision to ensure procedural fairness and a comprehensive review of all aspects. The judgment emphasized the complexities of Cenvat credit eligibility, time limits, and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in decision-making processes. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349689