https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369959 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, allowing CENVAT Credit on machines/equipments used in setting up a sugar plant. It held that the items qualified as capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules and were used in manufacturing final products, emphasizing the rules' purpose to prevent tax cascading. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases on immovable property, emphasizing the distinction regarding availing credit on capital goods. It criticized the Revenue for inconsistency, citing a similar decision accepted by the CBIC. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Respondent's entitlement to the credit and stressing the need for consistent legal interpretations to reduce litigation. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369959 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, allowing CENVAT Credit on machines/equipments used in setting up a sugar plant. It held that the items qualified as capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules and were used in manufacturing final products, emphasizing the rules' purpose to prevent tax cascading. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases on immovable property, emphasizing the distinction regarding availing credit on capital goods. It criticized the Revenue for inconsistency, citing a similar decision accepted by the CBIC. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Respondent's entitlement to the credit and stressing the need for consistent legal interpretations to reduce litigation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369959