https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241683 Exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was upheld because the condition of non-availment of input stage credit was not shown to have been breached. The appellant, accepted as a merchant-manufacturer, produced a certificate from the Divisional Deputy Commissioner stating that no Cenvat credit had been availed, while the supporting manufacturer's payments through PLA and RG23B did not amount to credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. As the Revenue produced no documentary evidence proving availment of prohibited input credit, it failed to discharge the burden of establishing violation of the notification condition. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the demand, interest and penalty could not survive. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:58:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241683 Exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was upheld because the condition of non-availment of input stage credit was not shown to have been breached. The appellant, accepted as a merchant-manufacturer, produced a certificate from the Divisional Deputy Commissioner stating that no Cenvat credit had been availed, while the supporting manufacturer's payments through PLA and RG23B did not amount to credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. As the Revenue produced no documentary evidence proving availment of prohibited input credit, it failed to discharge the burden of establishing violation of the notification condition. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the demand, interest and penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241683