https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344665 The case involved the Revenue appealing against an order where the respondent was accused of not maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing Zinc Skimming and Zinc Ash. The adjudicating authority had initially confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand after verifying that the respondent did not take Cenvat credit for segregating Zinc Ash. The Member (Judicial) considered the verification report, which indicated no Cenvat credit taken on Zinc Ash/inputs. As a result, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the respondent had not taken Cenvat credit for the inputs used in producing Zinc Ash. en-us Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:39:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344665 The case involved the Revenue appealing against an order where the respondent was accused of not maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing Zinc Skimming and Zinc Ash. The adjudicating authority had initially confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand after verifying that the respondent did not take Cenvat credit for segregating Zinc Ash. The Member (Judicial) considered the verification report, which indicated no Cenvat credit taken on Zinc Ash/inputs. As a result, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the respondent had not taken Cenvat credit for the inputs used in producing Zinc Ash. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344665