https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373261 The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods and claimed depreciation, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the appellant rectified the mistake by withdrawing the claim for deduction in a revised income tax return for the subsequent year. On the allegation of availing Credit of Education Cess on CVD and Secondary and Higher Education Cess, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit was incorrect as Rule 3(1)(vii) permits manufacturers to avail such credits. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:33:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373261 The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods and claimed depreciation, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the appellant rectified the mistake by withdrawing the claim for deduction in a revised income tax return for the subsequent year. On the allegation of availing Credit of Education Cess on CVD and Secondary and Higher Education Cess, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit was incorrect as Rule 3(1)(vii) permits manufacturers to avail such credits. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373261