https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368922 The tribunal concluded that M/s Narbada Industries was indeed a manufacturer during the impugned period and paid duty on the goods manufactured. Consequently, duty could not be demanded on the allegation of non-manufacture. As M/s Narbada was the manufacturer, M/s Nectar was entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The importance of concrete evidence and proper procedural compliance in adjudicating such cases was emphasized. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368922 The tribunal concluded that M/s Narbada Industries was indeed a manufacturer during the impugned period and paid duty on the goods manufactured. Consequently, duty could not be demanded on the allegation of non-manufacture. As M/s Narbada was the manufacturer, M/s Nectar was entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The importance of concrete evidence and proper procedural compliance in adjudicating such cases was emphasized. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368922