https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255175 Cenvat credit on inputs could not be denied merely because the supplier may have wrongly paid duty, where duty had in fact been paid and its incidence borne by the recipient. CESTAT held that the recipient's excise authorities cannot independently reopen the supplier's classification or question the supplier's duty payment unless that assessment has first been disturbed by the supplier's jurisdictional authority. The earlier ruling on wire drawing not amounting to manufacture was confined to that issue and did not govern credit eligibility in this context. The order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 10:12:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255175 Cenvat credit on inputs could not be denied merely because the supplier may have wrongly paid duty, where duty had in fact been paid and its incidence borne by the recipient. CESTAT held that the recipient's excise authorities cannot independently reopen the supplier's classification or question the supplier's duty payment unless that assessment has first been disturbed by the supplier's jurisdictional authority. The earlier ruling on wire drawing not amounting to manufacture was confined to that issue and did not govern credit eligibility in this context. The order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255175