https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362584 The CESTAT remanded the case for further evidence presentation, leading to a denovo order by the Commissioner of Central Excise allowing certain CENVAT credit but confirming demands on capital goods and services. The CESTAT upheld the eligibility of CENVAT credit on items used for fabrication but disallowed input service tax credit on services by the architect. The Order-in-Original was modified to partially allow the appeal, reducing penalty and interest elements accordingly. en-us Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:15:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362584 The CESTAT remanded the case for further evidence presentation, leading to a denovo order by the Commissioner of Central Excise allowing certain CENVAT credit but confirming demands on capital goods and services. The CESTAT upheld the eligibility of CENVAT credit on items used for fabrication but disallowed input service tax credit on services by the architect. The Order-in-Original was modified to partially allow the appeal, reducing penalty and interest elements accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362584