https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751287 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the impugned order, and confirmed the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on materials used for erecting "Unipoles"/hoardings. It concluded that these materials, not permanently affixed to the earth, qualify as goods. The decision relied on legal precedents and clarified that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(k) of CCR does not apply to service providers. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to consequential benefits under the law, establishing a precedent for similar cases involving service providers claiming Cenvat credit for materials used in non-permanent structures. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Apr 2024 09:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751287 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the impugned order, and confirmed the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on materials used for erecting "Unipoles"/hoardings. It concluded that these materials, not permanently affixed to the earth, qualify as goods. The decision relied on legal precedents and clarified that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(k) of CCR does not apply to service providers. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to consequential benefits under the law, establishing a precedent for similar cases involving service providers claiming Cenvat credit for materials used in non-permanent structures. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751287