https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265146 Cenvat credit on transformers returned for repair could not be denied merely because the original invoices were not produced, where the goods were traceable through triplicate invoices and CT numbers and the credit was reversed when the repaired goods were cleared. The procedural lapse in documentation was insufficient to defeat credit on those facts. A duty demand based on an alleged difference between ER-1 returns and balance-sheet figures for repair-related parts was also unsustainable because the notice did not support the premise adopted in the demand and repair activity was not treated as manufacture for that purpose. The ratio emphasises traceability of goods, reversal of credit, and consistency between the notice and the demand. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265146 Cenvat credit on transformers returned for repair could not be denied merely because the original invoices were not produced, where the goods were traceable through triplicate invoices and CT numbers and the credit was reversed when the repaired goods were cleared. The procedural lapse in documentation was insufficient to defeat credit on those facts. A duty demand based on an alleged difference between ER-1 returns and balance-sheet figures for repair-related parts was also unsustainable because the notice did not support the premise adopted in the demand and repair activity was not treated as manufacture for that purpose. The ratio emphasises traceability of goods, reversal of credit, and consistency between the notice and the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265146