https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377984 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous order that denied CENVAT credit for hiring earth moving equipment used in mining operations. The Tribunal held that the authorities failed to consider the full definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, leading to the erroneous denial of credit. It was established that excavators, loaders, and tippers qualified as capital goods and were eligible for CENVAT credit when used for providing taxable services. The demand was deemed barred by limitation due to the absence of evidence of suppression of facts. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 06:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377984 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous order that denied CENVAT credit for hiring earth moving equipment used in mining operations. The Tribunal held that the authorities failed to consider the full definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, leading to the erroneous denial of credit. It was established that excavators, loaders, and tippers qualified as capital goods and were eligible for CENVAT credit when used for providing taxable services. The demand was deemed barred by limitation due to the absence of evidence of suppression of facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377984