https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84559 Modvat credit is distinguished from its utilisation: once credit is validly taken on inputs, the inputs assume the character of non-duty paid goods, and an exemption notification that contemplates duty where credit has been taken does not justify denial of credit under Rule 57C merely because the finished goods are exempt. For inputs left in stock after opting out of the Modvat scheme, recovery should proceed under Rule 57F(1)(ii) when the inputs are taken for use, or under Section 11A for duty recovery, rather than by invoking Rule 57I. The note adopts the Larger Bench view that Rule 57I was not the correct mechanism on these facts. en-us Tue, 03 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:58:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84559 Modvat credit is distinguished from its utilisation: once credit is validly taken on inputs, the inputs assume the character of non-duty paid goods, and an exemption notification that contemplates duty where credit has been taken does not justify denial of credit under Rule 57C merely because the finished goods are exempt. For inputs left in stock after opting out of the Modvat scheme, recovery should proceed under Rule 57F(1)(ii) when the inputs are taken for use, or under Section 11A for duty recovery, rather than by invoking Rule 57I. The note adopts the Larger Bench view that Rule 57I was not the correct mechanism on these facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84559