https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214566 The HC upheld the CESTAT's decision that the assessee was entitled to retain CENVAT credit on duty paid for HR/CR coils used in producing decoiled HR/CR coils. The court noted that the Board's 2001 Circular recognized cutting/slitting as manufacture but did not address additional processes like pickling and oiling, which the assessee performed. Since the Board only clarified in 2010 that pickling is not manufacture, the assessee could not be faulted for availing credit during 2 March to 31 December 2005. As the duty on the final product was paid bona fide and accepted by the department, reversal of CENVAT credit was unwarranted even if the activity was later deemed not to constitute manufacture. en-us Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214566 The HC upheld the CESTAT's decision that the assessee was entitled to retain CENVAT credit on duty paid for HR/CR coils used in producing decoiled HR/CR coils. The court noted that the Board's 2001 Circular recognized cutting/slitting as manufacture but did not address additional processes like pickling and oiling, which the assessee performed. Since the Board only clarified in 2010 that pickling is not manufacture, the assessee could not be faulted for availing credit during 2 March to 31 December 2005. As the duty on the final product was paid bona fide and accepted by the department, reversal of CENVAT credit was unwarranted even if the activity was later deemed not to constitute manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214566