https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154894 On opting for a value-based exemption, Rule 9(2) was read as requiring the manufacturer to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs in stock, work in progress and finished goods on the date of exemption, even where the credit balance was insufficient. The liability was treated as independent of whether the credit had been correctly taken, correctly utilised, or remained available in the account. A contrary Tribunal view and another divergent decision were noted, creating a conflict on the legal questions. The order did not finally decide the merits and directed placement before the President for consideration of reference to a Division Bench. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:20:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154894 On opting for a value-based exemption, Rule 9(2) was read as requiring the manufacturer to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs in stock, work in progress and finished goods on the date of exemption, even where the credit balance was insufficient. The liability was treated as independent of whether the credit had been correctly taken, correctly utilised, or remained available in the account. A contrary Tribunal view and another divergent decision were noted, creating a conflict on the legal questions. The order did not finally decide the merits and directed placement before the President for consideration of reference to a Division Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154894