https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791717 Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods was held admissible where the assessee lawfully cleared goods under both a nil-rate exemption notification and a concessional-duty notification, and also exported goods under rebate, because the mixed-clearance pattern did not show exclusive use for exempted goods and the credit position was supported by the applicable Board clarification and precedents. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, the demand arose from an interpretative dispute over the interaction of the notifications and credit rules, the relevant credit was disclosed in returns and rebate proceedings, and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty; the extended period was therefore not invocable. Demand, interest and penalty were set aside. en-us Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791717 Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods was held admissible where the assessee lawfully cleared goods under both a nil-rate exemption notification and a concessional-duty notification, and also exported goods under rebate, because the mixed-clearance pattern did not show exclusive use for exempted goods and the credit position was supported by the applicable Board clarification and precedents. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, the demand arose from an interpretative dispute over the interaction of the notifications and credit rules, the relevant credit was disclosed in returns and rebate proceedings, and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty; the extended period was therefore not invocable. Demand, interest and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791717