https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97572 The case involved issues regarding availing Modvat credit on HDPE and LDPE granules for manufacturing different products. The appellants were accused of not declaring HDPE granules as input for Master Batch clearance and of not restricting Modvat credit earned on LDPE granules to specific product accounts. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, remanding the case for reevaluation based on evidence presented and allowing cross-utilization of credit on common inputs. The judgment underscores the significance of accurate documentation and compliance with legal provisions and established precedents in excise duty matters. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:45:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97572 The case involved issues regarding availing Modvat credit on HDPE and LDPE granules for manufacturing different products. The appellants were accused of not declaring HDPE granules as input for Master Batch clearance and of not restricting Modvat credit earned on LDPE granules to specific product accounts. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, remanding the case for reevaluation based on evidence presented and allowing cross-utilization of credit on common inputs. The judgment underscores the significance of accurate documentation and compliance with legal provisions and established precedents in excise duty matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97572