https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52321 Under Rule 2(f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, the definition of "inputs" was read as a single provision requiring use for manufacture or other purposes within the factory of production, so credit was not admissible on inputs used outside the factory. The earlier Rule 57A position was distinguished because it lacked the same express factory-based restriction, and the demand challenge therefore failed on the credit issue. As the dispute turned on interpretation of the credit rule rather than contumacious conduct, the penalty was held unsustainable and deleted. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:43:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52321 Under Rule 2(f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, the definition of "inputs" was read as a single provision requiring use for manufacture or other purposes within the factory of production, so credit was not admissible on inputs used outside the factory. The earlier Rule 57A position was distinguished because it lacked the same express factory-based restriction, and the demand challenge therefore failed on the credit issue. As the dispute turned on interpretation of the credit rule rather than contumacious conduct, the penalty was held unsustainable and deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52321