https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363673 Cenvat credit did not require reversal merely because duty-paid inputs were written off in the accounts as rejected or scrapped during manufacture. The decisive factor was that the inputs had been issued for use in production and were damaged, rejected, or scrapped in the course of the manufacturing process, so the accounting write-off did not by itself show clearance of inputs as such. Contemporaneous records of line rejection and product non-conformity supported the explanation that the inputs were not removed intact from the factory. Credit reversal was therefore not warranted and denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified. en-us Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363673 Cenvat credit did not require reversal merely because duty-paid inputs were written off in the accounts as rejected or scrapped during manufacture. The decisive factor was that the inputs had been issued for use in production and were damaged, rejected, or scrapped in the course of the manufacturing process, so the accounting write-off did not by itself show clearance of inputs as such. Contemporaneous records of line rejection and product non-conformity supported the explanation that the inputs were not removed intact from the factory. Credit reversal was therefore not warranted and denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363673