https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402020 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant in a case concerning disputed capital goods credit. The Appellant successfully argued that the credit availed pertained not only to cement and steel items but also to plant, machinery, and equipment, qualifying as capital goods. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted that the disputed items, when used in fabricating storage tanks, were eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs, despite the insertion of Explanation 2 in July 2009. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, providing relief to the Appellant on 16 December 2020. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:10:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402020 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant in a case concerning disputed capital goods credit. The Appellant successfully argued that the credit availed pertained not only to cement and steel items but also to plant, machinery, and equipment, qualifying as capital goods. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted that the disputed items, when used in fabricating storage tanks, were eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs, despite the insertion of Explanation 2 in July 2009. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, providing relief to the Appellant on 16 December 2020. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402020