https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412848 Credit was admissible on outward transportation services used to dispose of hazardous waste generated during manufacture because the expenditure was incurred for mandatory disposal under the pollution control regime, not for removal of excisable goods. That service was treated as part of the manufacturing activity and fell within the main limb of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The contrary precedent on removal of excisable goods was held inapplicable on these facts, while the precedent supporting credit for disposal of hazardous waste was followed. Accordingly, the denial of Cenvat credit on such transportation service was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:03:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412848 Credit was admissible on outward transportation services used to dispose of hazardous waste generated during manufacture because the expenditure was incurred for mandatory disposal under the pollution control regime, not for removal of excisable goods. That service was treated as part of the manufacturing activity and fell within the main limb of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The contrary precedent on removal of excisable goods was held inapplicable on these facts, while the precedent supporting credit for disposal of hazardous waste was followed. Accordingly, the denial of Cenvat credit on such transportation service was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412848