https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780392 CESTAT Chennai - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that Rules 16(1) and 16(2) must be read conjointly: duty-paid goods returned for remaking/refining entitle the manufacturer to CENVAT credit if those goods were subjected to a process of manufacture at first removal, and there is no obligation to subject them to manufacture again. The extended period under Section 11A(4) was not invocable absent any proven suppression with intent to evade duty. Revenue failed to justify extended-period demands and penalties; the demand was quashed. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780392 CESTAT Chennai - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that Rules 16(1) and 16(2) must be read conjointly: duty-paid goods returned for remaking/refining entitle the manufacturer to CENVAT credit if those goods were subjected to a process of manufacture at first removal, and there is no obligation to subject them to manufacture again. The extended period under Section 11A(4) was not invocable absent any proven suppression with intent to evade duty. Revenue failed to justify extended-period demands and penalties; the demand was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780392