https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358835 The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking rectification of a final order that denied CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services. The applicant's argument based on a previous judgment supporting eligibility for gardening services credit was not considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds. The bench, exercising discretion under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, found no error on record and upheld the original decision, resulting in the dismissal of the rectification application. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:54:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358835 The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking rectification of a final order that denied CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services. The applicant's argument based on a previous judgment supporting eligibility for gardening services credit was not considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds. The bench, exercising discretion under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, found no error on record and upheld the original decision, resulting in the dismissal of the rectification application. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358835