https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220252 The Tribunal erred in treating the CENVAT credit duty demand as premature without first deciding the ative factual question whether the damaged inputs had actually been used in the manufacture of final products and whether duty had been paid. The dispute concerned inputs damaged during transit, with penalty and interest also imposed by the adjudicating authority. By proceeding on the view that the goods were still in the factory and might yet be usable, the Tribunal failed to examine the core factual basis for the demand. Its order could not stand, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220252 The Tribunal erred in treating the CENVAT credit duty demand as premature without first deciding the ative factual question whether the damaged inputs had actually been used in the manufacture of final products and whether duty had been paid. The dispute concerned inputs damaged during transit, with penalty and interest also imposed by the adjudicating authority. By proceeding on the view that the goods were still in the factory and might yet be usable, the Tribunal failed to examine the core factual basis for the demand. Its order could not stand, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220252