https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355822 Cenvat credit was discussed in two contexts: capital goods installed in an adjacent unit before merger, and goods imported under project imports. On the merger issue, credit under Rule 2(a) became available once the two premises formed a common entity, so earlier taking of credit did not defeat eligibility; the only consequence for the intervening period was interest. On project-import goods under CTH 98.01, the special explanation to Rule 3(1) permitted credit of additional customs duty regardless of the disputed CVD classification. As a result, the substantive credit claim was supported, and the associated penalty on the Managing Director lacked a basis. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355822 Cenvat credit was discussed in two contexts: capital goods installed in an adjacent unit before merger, and goods imported under project imports. On the merger issue, credit under Rule 2(a) became available once the two premises formed a common entity, so earlier taking of credit did not defeat eligibility; the only consequence for the intervening period was interest. On project-import goods under CTH 98.01, the special explanation to Rule 3(1) permitted credit of additional customs duty regardless of the disputed CVD classification. As a result, the substantive credit claim was supported, and the associated penalty on the Managing Director lacked a basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355822