https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115676 The case revolved around the demand for duty on a dealer who was not the manufacturer of the goods. The appellant, a Registered Dealer, argued that as they did not produce the goods and duty was paid by the manufacturer, they should not be liable for duty payment. The court confirmed that duty had been paid by the manufacturer, and the dealer had correctly passed on the Cenvat Credit, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal provisions in such cases. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:30:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115676 The case revolved around the demand for duty on a dealer who was not the manufacturer of the goods. The appellant, a Registered Dealer, argued that as they did not produce the goods and duty was paid by the manufacturer, they should not be liable for duty payment. The court confirmed that duty had been paid by the manufacturer, and the dealer had correctly passed on the Cenvat Credit, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal provisions in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115676