https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450667 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activities, although not strictly manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not warrant the reversal of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal set aside the demand to recover Cenvat Credit, as the Department had accepted excise duty on the finished goods. This decision was based on legal precedents, including the Bombay HC ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III vs. Ajinkya Enterprises, confirming that accepting duty on final products precludes the denial of Cenvat Credit for inputs. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:24:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450667 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activities, although not strictly manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not warrant the reversal of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal set aside the demand to recover Cenvat Credit, as the Department had accepted excise duty on the finished goods. This decision was based on legal precedents, including the Bombay HC ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III vs. Ajinkya Enterprises, confirming that accepting duty on final products precludes the denial of Cenvat Credit for inputs. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450667