https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764158 The court allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was eligible for CENVAT credit on capital goods moved between Plant No.1, Plant No.2, and Plant No.3. It determined that these plants were part of the same manufacturing unit, as evidenced by the subsequent single registration approval. The court found that the movement of capital goods did not constitute removal out of the manufacturing unit, thus not invalidating the credit. The judgment emphasized that subsequent integration under a single registration can retrospectively validate CENVAT credit, affirming the appellant's position against the Revenue's argument of separate registration requirements. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764158 The court allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was eligible for CENVAT credit on capital goods moved between Plant No.1, Plant No.2, and Plant No.3. It determined that these plants were part of the same manufacturing unit, as evidenced by the subsequent single registration approval. The court found that the movement of capital goods did not constitute removal out of the manufacturing unit, thus not invalidating the credit. The judgment emphasized that subsequent integration under a single registration can retrospectively validate CENVAT credit, affirming the appellant's position against the Revenue's argument of separate registration requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764158