https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360996 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, in a judgment by Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial), ruled in favor of the appellant on two key issues. Firstly, the demand of &8377; 33,33,794 under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 for trading sales was set aside as the transactions were deemed stock transfers, not sales. Secondly, the admissibility of credit on 'Construction Service' for repair and maintenance work was allowed, following a precedent established in a prior case. The tribunal carefully assessed the evidence and legal arguments, ultimately deciding in favor of the appellant on both matters. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 May 2018 07:02:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360996 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, in a judgment by Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial), ruled in favor of the appellant on two key issues. Firstly, the demand of &8377; 33,33,794 under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 for trading sales was set aside as the transactions were deemed stock transfers, not sales. Secondly, the admissibility of credit on 'Construction Service' for repair and maintenance work was allowed, following a precedent established in a prior case. The tribunal carefully assessed the evidence and legal arguments, ultimately deciding in favor of the appellant on both matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360996