https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423317 The Member (Judicial) found that the appellant, who had inputs issued for production but destroyed in a fire, should not be required to pay Cenvat Credit. The inputs, although not utilized, were considered work in progress, following the precedent set in a similar case. The judgment emphasized that when inputs are in the process of being used in manufacturing, they should be treated as work in progress, leading to the appeal being allowed and the demand for Cenvat Credit set aside. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:30:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423317 The Member (Judicial) found that the appellant, who had inputs issued for production but destroyed in a fire, should not be required to pay Cenvat Credit. The inputs, although not utilized, were considered work in progress, following the precedent set in a similar case. The judgment emphasized that when inputs are in the process of being used in manufacturing, they should be treated as work in progress, leading to the appeal being allowed and the demand for Cenvat Credit set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423317