https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752272 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of appellant company regarding Cenvat credit entitlement for period April 2008 to March 2012. The tribunal held that under strict interpretation of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 prevailing before April 1, 2012, the company was entitled to entire credit distributed by head office to its unit, despite having three units. Following Bombay HC precedent in Commissioner vs. Oerlikon Balzers case, CESTAT found the demand contrary to Rule 7 provisions and existing judgments. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 May 2024 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752272 CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of appellant company regarding Cenvat credit entitlement for period April 2008 to March 2012. The tribunal held that under strict interpretation of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 prevailing before April 1, 2012, the company was entitled to entire credit distributed by head office to its unit, despite having three units. Following Bombay HC precedent in Commissioner vs. Oerlikon Balzers case, CESTAT found the demand contrary to Rule 7 provisions and existing judgments. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752272