https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267695 The appellant, a tin box manufacturer availing SSI exemption, was entitled to cenvat credit on inputs in finished goods and with the job worker, according to Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to reverse the cenvat credit as demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The second appeal was granted relief as a result of allowing the first appeal, with both appeals allowed with consequential relief by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI. en-us Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267695 The appellant, a tin box manufacturer availing SSI exemption, was entitled to cenvat credit on inputs in finished goods and with the job worker, according to Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to reverse the cenvat credit as demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The second appeal was granted relief as a result of allowing the first appeal, with both appeals allowed with consequential relief by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267695