https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338667 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty demand on Diethyl Phthalate for job work purposes. It held that Diethyl Phthalate, used as an intermediate good in the manufacture of the final product, qualified for removal under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. As the final product had already been cleared with duty payment, the demand on Diethyl Phthalate was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that products used in the manufacturing process should be treated as inputs, supporting the appellants' position and allowing their appeals. en-us Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338667 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty demand on Diethyl Phthalate for job work purposes. It held that Diethyl Phthalate, used as an intermediate good in the manufacture of the final product, qualified for removal under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. As the final product had already been cleared with duty payment, the demand on Diethyl Phthalate was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that products used in the manufacturing process should be treated as inputs, supporting the appellants' position and allowing their appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338667