https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74042 Input credit under Rule 57D(2) could not be denied merely because a non-excisable intermediate product emerged during manufacture of dutiable final products. The scheme was construed to prevent cascading duty and to preserve credit where intermediate goods are exempt or liable to nil duty, and the absence of an express prohibition against non-excisable intermediates required a construction that advanced that object. On that basis, the assessee remained entitled to credit of duty paid on the input. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:49:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74042 Input credit under Rule 57D(2) could not be denied merely because a non-excisable intermediate product emerged during manufacture of dutiable final products. The scheme was construed to prevent cascading duty and to preserve credit where intermediate goods are exempt or liable to nil duty, and the absence of an express prohibition against non-excisable intermediates required a construction that advanced that object. On that basis, the assessee remained entitled to credit of duty paid on the input. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74042