https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76379 Cenvat credit validly taken and utilised on inputs, including inputs lying as such and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods in closing stock, was not required to be reversed merely because the assessee opted for Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. from a prospective date. The Tribunal applied the earlier Larger Bench principle that lawful credit cannot be recovered solely because the final product later becomes exempt. It rejected the distinction between inputs used in dutiable goods and inputs remaining in stock or process at the time of opting for exemption, and held the demand for reversal and recovery unsustainable. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76379 Cenvat credit validly taken and utilised on inputs, including inputs lying as such and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods in closing stock, was not required to be reversed merely because the assessee opted for Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. from a prospective date. The Tribunal applied the earlier Larger Bench principle that lawful credit cannot be recovered solely because the final product later becomes exempt. It rejected the distinction between inputs used in dutiable goods and inputs remaining in stock or process at the time of opting for exemption, and held the demand for reversal and recovery unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76379