https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219970 The case centered on the appellant's claim for cenvat credit on damaged parts in the manufacturing process. The Revenue alleged wrongful credit availment due to lack of evidence on part damage timing. The appellant argued parts were damaged during use, shifting burden of proof to Revenue. Both sides lacked concrete evidence. The appellant also raised a limitation claim, citing early credit availing and no suppression of facts. The judgment favored the appellant on limitation grounds, setting aside the demand due to lack of evidence and appellant's bonafide belief in credit availability. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219970 The case centered on the appellant's claim for cenvat credit on damaged parts in the manufacturing process. The Revenue alleged wrongful credit availment due to lack of evidence on part damage timing. The appellant argued parts were damaged during use, shifting burden of proof to Revenue. Both sides lacked concrete evidence. The appellant also raised a limitation claim, citing early credit availing and no suppression of facts. The judgment favored the appellant on limitation grounds, setting aside the demand due to lack of evidence and appellant's bonafide belief in credit availability. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219970