https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46163 Revenue's objections to treating the specified items as capital goods failed because it accepted the binding effect of CCE v. Leader Engineering Works, and the claim could not be sustained. The challenge to the retrospective operation of the amendments to Rule 57Q also failed on the same precedent-based concession, so the amendments were accepted as governing the relevant period. CENVAT credit under Rule 57A for the same items was likewise not admissible, as Revenue conceded that credit could not be maintained in light of the cited Tribunal decision. The petition was dismissed accordingly. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:01:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46163 Revenue's objections to treating the specified items as capital goods failed because it accepted the binding effect of CCE v. Leader Engineering Works, and the claim could not be sustained. The challenge to the retrospective operation of the amendments to Rule 57Q also failed on the same precedent-based concession, so the amendments were accepted as governing the relevant period. CENVAT credit under Rule 57A for the same items was likewise not admissible, as Revenue conceded that credit could not be maintained in light of the cited Tribunal decision. The petition was dismissed accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46163