https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113885 Notification No. 14/92-C.E. was interpreted according to its text: exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were not manufactured exclusively from inputs under the specified tariff headings, so long as the stated conditions were otherwise satisfied. Where goods had escaped assessment and were later subjected to duty, the realised sale price was to be treated as cum-duty value, which supported the assessee's computation. Modvat credit was also held admissible on the dutiable goods, there being no legal basis to disallow the relief already granted by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed in all material respects. en-us Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2012 10:19:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113885 Notification No. 14/92-C.E. was interpreted according to its text: exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were not manufactured exclusively from inputs under the specified tariff headings, so long as the stated conditions were otherwise satisfied. Where goods had escaped assessment and were later subjected to duty, the realised sale price was to be treated as cum-duty value, which supported the assessee's computation. Modvat credit was also held admissible on the dutiable goods, there being no legal basis to disallow the relief already granted by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed in all material respects. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113885