https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360408 The Tribunal held that despite the Bill of Entry not being in the appellant's name, they were entitled to cenvat credit as they received and utilized the imported inputs for manufacturing. Emphasizing the undisputed receipt and use of inputs, the Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support the appellant's case. The department did not dispute the appellant's use of inputs, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was eligible for credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with appropriate relief. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 May 2018 05:53:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360408 The Tribunal held that despite the Bill of Entry not being in the appellant's name, they were entitled to cenvat credit as they received and utilized the imported inputs for manufacturing. Emphasizing the undisputed receipt and use of inputs, the Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support the appellant's case. The department did not dispute the appellant's use of inputs, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was eligible for credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with appropriate relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360408