https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377022 Revenue's demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on capital goods failed because it did not prove the factual for denying exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The alleged use of the brand name "Shukla" was unsupported by evidence and was denied by the assessee, while the record showed clearance of waste and scrap within the exemption limit. On those facts, the assessee remained within the exemption scheme and was entitled to take 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods in the first year of receipt. As the foundation for interest and penalty also collapsed, the demand was held unsustainable. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:45:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377022 Revenue's demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on capital goods failed because it did not prove the factual for denying exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The alleged use of the brand name "Shukla" was unsupported by evidence and was denied by the assessee, while the record showed clearance of waste and scrap within the exemption limit. On those facts, the assessee remained within the exemption scheme and was entitled to take 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods in the first year of receipt. As the foundation for interest and penalty also collapsed, the demand was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377022