https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179598 The Tribunal held that the process of testing rejected goods after receipt did not amount to manufacture, requiring the appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit availed under Rule 16(1) on the cleared goods. The demand for payment under Rule 16(2) for the period Sept. 2005 to March 2009 was confined to the normal period from the date of the show cause notice, as the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable due to no suppression or contumacious conduct. The penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules was set aside, and the appellant was allowed consequential relief in part. en-us Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:53:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179598 The Tribunal held that the process of testing rejected goods after receipt did not amount to manufacture, requiring the appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit availed under Rule 16(1) on the cleared goods. The demand for payment under Rule 16(2) for the period Sept. 2005 to March 2009 was confined to the normal period from the date of the show cause notice, as the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable due to no suppression or contumacious conduct. The penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules was set aside, and the appellant was allowed consequential relief in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179598