https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776384 The CESTAT held that goods classified under tariff heading 8705 were not "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period; thus, the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on such goods. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable. Since the demand was barred by limitation, the associated interest and penalty were also set aside. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776384 The CESTAT held that goods classified under tariff heading 8705 were not "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period; thus, the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on such goods. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable. Since the demand was barred by limitation, the associated interest and penalty were also set aside. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776384