https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202074 The appellant's appeal was allowed as the evidence indicated that the goods in question were manufactured by a different unit under SSI exemption, not at the appellant's premises. Despite being registered for manufacturing, the appellant lacked proof of actual manufacturing activities, leading to the disallowance of credit for inputs used in the final product. Expert opinions and statements supported the Revenue's contention that the goods were not manufactured by the appellant. The discrepancies in evidence and lack of proof of manufacturing activities led to the setting aside of the adjudicating authority's decision and the allowance of the appeal. en-us Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202074 The appellant's appeal was allowed as the evidence indicated that the goods in question were manufactured by a different unit under SSI exemption, not at the appellant's premises. Despite being registered for manufacturing, the appellant lacked proof of actual manufacturing activities, leading to the disallowance of credit for inputs used in the final product. Expert opinions and statements supported the Revenue's contention that the goods were not manufactured by the appellant. The discrepancies in evidence and lack of proof of manufacturing activities led to the setting aside of the adjudicating authority's decision and the allowance of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202074