https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773847 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for CENVAT credit reversal. The appellant's clearance of Polypropylene Co-Polymer to moulders was held to be removal of inputs, not trading activity constituting exempt service. The authority erred in treating the same transaction as both input removal (with proper duty payment) and trading. Evidence showed PPCP was supplied solely for manufacturing battery parts returned to appellant, with no profit motive or market trading. The extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked as clearances were properly declared in ER-1 returns. Demand, interest, and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:46:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773847 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for CENVAT credit reversal. The appellant's clearance of Polypropylene Co-Polymer to moulders was held to be removal of inputs, not trading activity constituting exempt service. The authority erred in treating the same transaction as both input removal (with proper duty payment) and trading. Evidence showed PPCP was supplied solely for manufacturing battery parts returned to appellant, with no profit motive or market trading. The extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked as clearances were properly declared in ER-1 returns. Demand, interest, and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773847