https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213724 The case involved allegations of improper use of CENVAT credit for manufacturing both excisable and exempted goods without maintaining separate records. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demands and imposed penalties on the appellant company and its directors. The appellants argued that their activities did not amount to manufacturing exempted goods, but their plea was rejected. The dispute centered on the proper maintenance of separate records for inputs used in different types of products. The appellate tribunal set aside the order for further adjudication due to the lack of clear reasoning on whether the goods constituted exempted goods through a manufacturing process. en-us Mon, 09 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213724 The case involved allegations of improper use of CENVAT credit for manufacturing both excisable and exempted goods without maintaining separate records. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demands and imposed penalties on the appellant company and its directors. The appellants argued that their activities did not amount to manufacturing exempted goods, but their plea was rejected. The dispute centered on the proper maintenance of separate records for inputs used in different types of products. The appellate tribunal set aside the order for further adjudication due to the lack of clear reasoning on whether the goods constituted exempted goods through a manufacturing process. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213724