https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783652 The dominant issue was whether CENVAT credit on services used for setting up a factory after 01.04.2011 qualifies as "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding the 01.04.2011 amendment, such services remained covered within the main clause of the definition, applying its earlier decision that post-amendment setting-up related services continue to fall within the ambit of eligible input services. Consequently, denial of credit on the ground that "setting up" is excluded was unsustainable; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, granting entitlement to the disputed credit. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783652 The dominant issue was whether CENVAT credit on services used for setting up a factory after 01.04.2011 qualifies as "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding the 01.04.2011 amendment, such services remained covered within the main clause of the definition, applying its earlier decision that post-amendment setting-up related services continue to fall within the ambit of eligible input services. Consequently, denial of credit on the ground that "setting up" is excluded was unsustainable; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, granting entitlement to the disputed credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783652