https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113710 Credit of Additional Duties of Excise on yarn already lying in stock was available, and there was no legal bar to keeping that credit in a separate account for use under Rule 57F. The denial failed because it rested on the presumption that the yarn input would necessarily be consumed only in fabric manufacture and could not be removed as such. That assumption was rejected: if the input was not used in manufacture, or was cleared as such or otherwise not accounted for, the separately maintained credit could be applied against duty on the yarn. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 18:20:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113710 Credit of Additional Duties of Excise on yarn already lying in stock was available, and there was no legal bar to keeping that credit in a separate account for use under Rule 57F. The denial failed because it rested on the presumption that the yarn input would necessarily be consumed only in fabric manufacture and could not be removed as such. That assumption was rejected: if the input was not used in manufacture, or was cleared as such or otherwise not accounted for, the separately maintained credit could be applied against duty on the yarn. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113710