https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755460 CESTAT Chennai remanded the case to the original authority for fresh consideration. The appellant successfully argued that Rule 4(7) of CCR 2004 introducing time limits for CENVAT credit could not be applied retrospectively, as credit was availed within six months of the rule's introduction on 1.9.2014. Regarding outward transportation credit eligibility, the tribunal applied the Larger Bench decision in Ramco Cements, requiring determination of place of removal based on documents and SC precedents in Emco Ltd. and Roofit Industries. The interpretational nature of issues favored the appellant on limitation grounds. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:18:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755460 CESTAT Chennai remanded the case to the original authority for fresh consideration. The appellant successfully argued that Rule 4(7) of CCR 2004 introducing time limits for CENVAT credit could not be applied retrospectively, as credit was availed within six months of the rule's introduction on 1.9.2014. Regarding outward transportation credit eligibility, the tribunal applied the Larger Bench decision in Ramco Cements, requiring determination of place of removal based on documents and SC precedents in Emco Ltd. and Roofit Industries. The interpretational nature of issues favored the appellant on limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755460