https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416189 The appellant, a supplier of towers, was initially denied cenvat credit on paint supplied with towers for erection and installation. The revenue argued that since the painting was done by the Delhi office and not the appellant, credit should be denied. However, the Tribunal held that the paint was essential for safeguarding the tower, qualifying as an input under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit on paint, setting aside the denial and granting relief to the appellant. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416189 The appellant, a supplier of towers, was initially denied cenvat credit on paint supplied with towers for erection and installation. The revenue argued that since the painting was done by the Delhi office and not the appellant, credit should be denied. However, the Tribunal held that the paint was essential for safeguarding the tower, qualifying as an input under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit on paint, setting aside the denial and granting relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416189