https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447217 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant's process of drawing/re-drawing imported flux cored wire to achieve desired shape, dimension, and layering amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found the department improperly introduced new evidence (Panchnama dated 05.06.2020) after the show cause notice, changing their case beyond the remand order's scope. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as all facts were within the department's knowledge through audit reports. The CENVAT credit demand was held unsustainable on both merits and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447217 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant's process of drawing/re-drawing imported flux cored wire to achieve desired shape, dimension, and layering amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found the department improperly introduced new evidence (Panchnama dated 05.06.2020) after the show cause notice, changing their case beyond the remand order's scope. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as all facts were within the department's knowledge through audit reports. The CENVAT credit demand was held unsustainable on both merits and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447217