https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392810 The Tribunal held that the appellant, a provider of broadcasting services, was not required to keep capital goods in constant use to avoid consequences under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The removal of equipment to customer premises did not disqualify them from availing CENVAT credit, as there was no provision requiring continuous usage for eligibility. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's order erroneous and set aside the demand for tax and penalties, allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:09:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392810 The Tribunal held that the appellant, a provider of broadcasting services, was not required to keep capital goods in constant use to avoid consequences under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The removal of equipment to customer premises did not disqualify them from availing CENVAT credit, as there was no provision requiring continuous usage for eligibility. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's order erroneous and set aside the demand for tax and penalties, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392810