https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209939 The appellant, a manufacturer, defaulted in paying duty for March 2007, leading to withdrawal of cenvat credit use. Dispute arose over cenvat credit utilization for exempted final products. Lower authorities equated the payable amount with duty, restricting credit use. The appellant argued against this equivalence, seeking to reverse credit if paying from PLA. The court held that Rule 6(3)(b) aims to counter-effect credit on inputs for exempted products, making the demand unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellants. en-us Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209939 The appellant, a manufacturer, defaulted in paying duty for March 2007, leading to withdrawal of cenvat credit use. Dispute arose over cenvat credit utilization for exempted final products. Lower authorities equated the payable amount with duty, restricting credit use. The appellant argued against this equivalence, seeking to reverse credit if paying from PLA. The court held that Rule 6(3)(b) aims to counter-effect credit on inputs for exempted products, making the demand unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209939