https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760734 CESTAT Hyderabad partially allowed the appeal in a CENVAT credit dispute. The tribunal set aside demand of Rs. 1,33,312/- as the Adjudicating Authority exceeded scope of show cause notice and incorrectly classified Araldite as inputs/consumables instead of capital goods. However, uncontested demand of Rs. 1,25,329/- was upheld. The tribunal found that both goods qualified for CENVAT credit as capital goods based on their use in fermentation tanks for corrosion protection. Penalty was reduced from composite amount to Rs. 20,000/- considering partial sustainability of demands. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:15:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760734 CESTAT Hyderabad partially allowed the appeal in a CENVAT credit dispute. The tribunal set aside demand of Rs. 1,33,312/- as the Adjudicating Authority exceeded scope of show cause notice and incorrectly classified Araldite as inputs/consumables instead of capital goods. However, uncontested demand of Rs. 1,25,329/- was upheld. The tribunal found that both goods qualified for CENVAT credit as capital goods based on their use in fermentation tanks for corrosion protection. Penalty was reduced from composite amount to Rs. 20,000/- considering partial sustainability of demands. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760734