https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378970 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the appellant had not irregularly availed cenvat credit. The case involved interpreting 'input service,' cenvat credit utilization, and cross utilization of credit, with legal precedents supporting the appellant's position. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant's cenvat credit utilization lawful, including for Renting of Immovable Property. The Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by the Revenue was unsustainable, sustaining the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:27:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378970 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the appellant had not irregularly availed cenvat credit. The case involved interpreting 'input service,' cenvat credit utilization, and cross utilization of credit, with legal precedents supporting the appellant's position. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant's cenvat credit utilization lawful, including for Renting of Immovable Property. The Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by the Revenue was unsustainable, sustaining the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378970