https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52459 Input credit under Rule 57A could not be denied merely because the packing activity was later treated as not amounting to manufacture. The Tribunal applied the principle that central excise law makes no distinction between manufacture for levy and manufacture for input credit, and that credit remains available where duty-paid goods are used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, even if the finished product may not attract duty. Once credit is validly taken and utilised, recovery is not sustainable solely on the ground that manufacture is disputed. The demand for reversal was therefore held unsustainable. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:03:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52459 Input credit under Rule 57A could not be denied merely because the packing activity was later treated as not amounting to manufacture. The Tribunal applied the principle that central excise law makes no distinction between manufacture for levy and manufacture for input credit, and that credit remains available where duty-paid goods are used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, even if the finished product may not attract duty. Once credit is validly taken and utilised, recovery is not sustainable solely on the ground that manufacture is disputed. The demand for reversal was therefore held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52459