https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245260 The appeal was allowed as the appellant, who received duty paid goods for repair but did not avail CENVAT credit, was not obligated to pay duty upon clearance post-repair. The court found that the repair processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture, and there was no evidence that replaced goods were used. As the appellant did not claim CENVAT credit, the impugned demands were set aside, providing the appellant with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245260 The appeal was allowed as the appellant, who received duty paid goods for repair but did not avail CENVAT credit, was not obligated to pay duty upon clearance post-repair. The court found that the repair processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture, and there was no evidence that replaced goods were used. As the appellant did not claim CENVAT credit, the impugned demands were set aside, providing the appellant with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245260