https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444201 The appeal regarding the denial of CENVAT credit for 'capital goods' procured/imported between 2005-06 and 2007-08 was allowed. The adjudicating authority's demand was reduced by the first appellate authority, but the explanations provided by the appellant were initially rejected. The court found no clear evidence of diversion of goods and criticized the lack of verification at sister units. The absence of compelling evidence and reliance on presumptions led to the setting aside of the impugned order, allowing the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:41:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444201 The appeal regarding the denial of CENVAT credit for 'capital goods' procured/imported between 2005-06 and 2007-08 was allowed. The adjudicating authority's demand was reduced by the first appellate authority, but the explanations provided by the appellant were initially rejected. The court found no clear evidence of diversion of goods and criticized the lack of verification at sister units. The absence of compelling evidence and reliance on presumptions led to the setting aside of the impugned order, allowing the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444201