https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34024 The Revenue's appeal against allowing credit of duty paid on non-excisable goods was dismissed. The case centered on whether duty paid on "Spring Steel Wire" could be credited to the respondents, despite the goods being non-excisable. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing that manufacturers receiving inputs on payment of duty were entitled to credit, regardless of the excisability of the final product. The judgment referenced Supreme Court precedent, asserting that the benefit of duty paid by the supplier should extend to the recipient. The Revenue's argument that duty payments for non-excisable activities were deposits, not excise duty, was rejected. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34024 The Revenue's appeal against allowing credit of duty paid on non-excisable goods was dismissed. The case centered on whether duty paid on "Spring Steel Wire" could be credited to the respondents, despite the goods being non-excisable. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing that manufacturers receiving inputs on payment of duty were entitled to credit, regardless of the excisability of the final product. The judgment referenced Supreme Court precedent, asserting that the benefit of duty paid by the supplier should extend to the recipient. The Revenue's argument that duty payments for non-excisable activities were deposits, not excise duty, was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34024