https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256383 The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the duty demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, citing payment for inputs received and used in manufacturing. Referring to a similar Adhunik Steels Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee for receiving and using duty paid inputs. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, stressing the importance of proving receipt and utilization of inputs in manufacturing. The judgment underscores the necessity of proper documentation to support input usage and the shifting burden of proof to the assessee in such cases. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256383 The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the duty demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, citing payment for inputs received and used in manufacturing. Referring to a similar Adhunik Steels Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee for receiving and using duty paid inputs. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, stressing the importance of proving receipt and utilization of inputs in manufacturing. The judgment underscores the necessity of proper documentation to support input usage and the shifting burden of proof to the assessee in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256383