https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450445 The appellant engaged in packing/repacking and labeling/relabeling activities and discharged Central Excise duty on products during the disputed period (1.2.2013 to 1.1.2014). CESTAT Chennai held that since the appellant had valid Central Excise registration during the disputed period and discharged excise duty, the department cannot disallow CENVAT credit on CVD paid for imported goods by alleging the activity does not constitute manufacture. The fact that registration was revoked after the disputed period was irrelevant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 08:28:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450445 The appellant engaged in packing/repacking and labeling/relabeling activities and discharged Central Excise duty on products during the disputed period (1.2.2013 to 1.1.2014). CESTAT Chennai held that since the appellant had valid Central Excise registration during the disputed period and discharged excise duty, the department cannot disallow CENVAT credit on CVD paid for imported goods by alleging the activity does not constitute manufacture. The fact that registration was revoked after the disputed period was irrelevant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450445