https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264411 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where inputs were genuinely used in manufacture and only a negligible part was damaged during the process and cleared as scrap on payment of duty; credit could not be denied merely because waste or scrap emerged before the finished goods came into existence. The larger credit demand was therefore set aside. For inputs found short on audit, suppression was inferred because the shortage was not reversed until pointed out, so the extended period was held invocable and the demand was sustained with interest and Section 11AC penalty. However, reduced penalty was allowed because duty and interest had been paid before adjudication, and the separate penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264411 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where inputs were genuinely used in manufacture and only a negligible part was damaged during the process and cleared as scrap on payment of duty; credit could not be denied merely because waste or scrap emerged before the finished goods came into existence. The larger credit demand was therefore set aside. For inputs found short on audit, suppression was inferred because the shortage was not reversed until pointed out, so the extended period was held invocable and the demand was sustained with interest and Section 11AC penalty. However, reduced penalty was allowed because duty and interest had been paid before adjudication, and the separate penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264411