https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358425 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the recovery of excess cenvat credit on capital goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly availed credit for used capital goods moved between locations under Rule 3(6) and Rule 10, without the need for prior permission. It was determined that there was no intent to evade duty payment, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief, ultimately concluding that the recovery of excess credit was unwarranted. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358425 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the recovery of excess cenvat credit on capital goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly availed credit for used capital goods moved between locations under Rule 3(6) and Rule 10, without the need for prior permission. It was determined that there was no intent to evade duty payment, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief, ultimately concluding that the recovery of excess credit was unwarranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358425