https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125640 The respondents, manufacturers of excisable ice-cream, faced a dispute regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs following an exemption on their final products. The Commissioner (A) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the reversal of credit should not be linked to the refund process without prior notice. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing precedents that once credit is legally taken, it cannot be denied even if final products become exempt later. The Tribunal also discussed the application of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing that the credit taken on inputs should not be withheld from the respondents. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:38:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125640 The respondents, manufacturers of excisable ice-cream, faced a dispute regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs following an exemption on their final products. The Commissioner (A) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the reversal of credit should not be linked to the refund process without prior notice. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing precedents that once credit is legally taken, it cannot be denied even if final products become exempt later. The Tribunal also discussed the application of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing that the credit taken on inputs should not be withheld from the respondents. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125640