https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465008 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to CENVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It found that the capital goods were specifically used for manufacture of Maaza PET bottle products, with production commencing on 29.03.2011, when the final product had become dutiable and the earlier exemption stood withdrawn. The Adjudicating Authority, in remand proceedings, had exceeded its limited mandate by reopening settled legal issues without any challenge by Revenue to the earlier CESTAT order. Consequently, the impugned order was held illegal and set aside, restoring the appellant's CENVAT credit claim. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:36:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465008 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to CENVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It found that the capital goods were specifically used for manufacture of Maaza PET bottle products, with production commencing on 29.03.2011, when the final product had become dutiable and the earlier exemption stood withdrawn. The Adjudicating Authority, in remand proceedings, had exceeded its limited mandate by reopening settled legal issues without any challenge by Revenue to the earlier CESTAT order. Consequently, the impugned order was held illegal and set aside, restoring the appellant's CENVAT credit claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465008