https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365981 The Tribunal set aside the demand for CENVAT credit for the period April 2006 to September 2006 due to being time-barred. However, demands for subsequent periods were upheld. The Tribunal remitted the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods back to the authority for a fresh decision. Interest liability on unutilized credit was upheld, and penalties imposed on the appellant were overturned as they genuinely believed they were entitled to the credit. en-us Mon, 28 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:19:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365981 The Tribunal set aside the demand for CENVAT credit for the period April 2006 to September 2006 due to being time-barred. However, demands for subsequent periods were upheld. The Tribunal remitted the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods back to the authority for a fresh decision. Interest liability on unutilized credit was upheld, and penalties imposed on the appellant were overturned as they genuinely believed they were entitled to the credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365981