https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766011 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers received under operating lease as vehicles were registered in lessor's name, not appellant's. Post-2010 amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules specifically required registration in service provider's name for credit eligibility. Court distinguished pre-2010 cases allowing such credit due to rule ambiguity. Interest demand upheld as compensatory for withheld tax payments. Extended limitation period rejected as appellant had genuine belief in credit availability based on prior favorable decisions, with no evidence of duty evasion intent. Penalty under Rule 14 not attracted. Appeal partially allowed. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:00:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766011 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers received under operating lease as vehicles were registered in lessor's name, not appellant's. Post-2010 amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules specifically required registration in service provider's name for credit eligibility. Court distinguished pre-2010 cases allowing such credit due to rule ambiguity. Interest demand upheld as compensatory for withheld tax payments. Extended limitation period rejected as appellant had genuine belief in credit availability based on prior favorable decisions, with no evidence of duty evasion intent. Penalty under Rule 14 not attracted. Appeal partially allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766011