https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465422 The dominant issue was whether CENVAT credit was admissible on MS steel items (pipes, fittings, channels, sheets, etc.) used for fabrication/support of machinery, which the department treated as ineligible structural material rather than "capital goods" or "inputs" under the CCR. The Tribunal held that, given undisputed receipt and factory use, the items qualified for credit either as capital goods under Rule 2(a) or as inputs under Rule 2(k), and the denial's foundation based on the Larger Bench view had ceased after that view was set aside by the HC. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:39:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465422 The dominant issue was whether CENVAT credit was admissible on MS steel items (pipes, fittings, channels, sheets, etc.) used for fabrication/support of machinery, which the department treated as ineligible structural material rather than "capital goods" or "inputs" under the CCR. The Tribunal held that, given undisputed receipt and factory use, the items qualified for credit either as capital goods under Rule 2(a) or as inputs under Rule 2(k), and the denial's foundation based on the Larger Bench view had ceased after that view was set aside by the HC. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465422