https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46200 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned demand and adjudicatory orders were passed at Kanpur, giving rise to the material cause of action for the writ petitions. On the exemption issue, the court applied the Central Excise Act, the rules, and the notification to hold that excise duty is attracted at the stage of manufacture and clearance, while the notification deems inputs duty paid unless the Department proves they are clearly recognizable as non-duty paid. Mere auction purchase of railway scrap did not, by itself, justify denial of the exemption. The impugned orders were quashed and the notification benefit was held available. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:10:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46200 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned demand and adjudicatory orders were passed at Kanpur, giving rise to the material cause of action for the writ petitions. On the exemption issue, the court applied the Central Excise Act, the rules, and the notification to hold that excise duty is attracted at the stage of manufacture and clearance, while the notification deems inputs duty paid unless the Department proves they are clearly recognizable as non-duty paid. Mere auction purchase of railway scrap did not, by itself, justify denial of the exemption. The impugned orders were quashed and the notification benefit was held available. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46200