https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355688 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the goods in question were eligible for CENVAT credit as inputs used for providing output services. The appellant successfully argued that the goods, though not classified as capital goods, fell under Rule 2(k)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, allowing for such credit. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's classification and confirmed that the appellant had correctly availed the credit. The decision set aside the earlier denial of credit and granted consequential relief to the appellant. The issue of limitation was not addressed as the Tribunal resolved the matter on its merits. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355688 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the goods in question were eligible for CENVAT credit as inputs used for providing output services. The appellant successfully argued that the goods, though not classified as capital goods, fell under Rule 2(k)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, allowing for such credit. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's classification and confirmed that the appellant had correctly availed the credit. The decision set aside the earlier denial of credit and granted consequential relief to the appellant. The issue of limitation was not addressed as the Tribunal resolved the matter on its merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355688