https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793417 CENVAT credit was held admissible on duty-paid machinery, equipment, parts and accessories used to erect an air separation plant in the factory, both as capital goods under Rule 2(a) and alternatively as inputs under Rule 2(k). Credit was not denied merely because the plant was owned by the lessor, because the machinery was attached to earth for operational stability, or because the arrangement was not with a financing company. The adjudication also could not rely on a disqualification not alleged in the show cause notice, and the 07.07.2009 amendment to Rule 2(k) was treated as prospective only. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793417 CENVAT credit was held admissible on duty-paid machinery, equipment, parts and accessories used to erect an air separation plant in the factory, both as capital goods under Rule 2(a) and alternatively as inputs under Rule 2(k). Credit was not denied merely because the plant was owned by the lessor, because the machinery was attached to earth for operational stability, or because the arrangement was not with a financing company. The adjudication also could not rely on a disqualification not alleged in the show cause notice, and the 07.07.2009 amendment to Rule 2(k) was treated as prospective only. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793417