https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406005 The Tribunal set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the exclusive use of the leased premises was for the appellant only, not its subsidiaries, and the Cenvat Credit availed was valid. The requirement of permission under Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules was deemed inapplicable as the stored inputs were non-excisable. The extended period of limitation and penalties were rejected due to lack of evidence of suppression, fraud, or collusion. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's Cenvat Credit was upheld as valid. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Nov 2021 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406005 The Tribunal set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the exclusive use of the leased premises was for the appellant only, not its subsidiaries, and the Cenvat Credit availed was valid. The requirement of permission under Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules was deemed inapplicable as the stored inputs were non-excisable. The extended period of limitation and penalties were rejected due to lack of evidence of suppression, fraud, or collusion. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's Cenvat Credit was upheld as valid. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406005