https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236913 Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. was applied strictly: the exemption operated only to the extent the duty liability was not already covered by available Cenvat credit, and the available credit had to be exhausted first. The majority therefore treated the prescribed sequence of payment as mandatory and held that failure to use the credit during the relevant period defeated the plea of revenue neutrality, so pre-deposit of the excess exemption availed from 1-4-2008 onwards was required. A limitation plea was also regarded as prima facie unavailable at the stay stage. The dissent considered the matter revenue neutral and would have waived pre-deposit. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236913 Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. was applied strictly: the exemption operated only to the extent the duty liability was not already covered by available Cenvat credit, and the available credit had to be exhausted first. The majority therefore treated the prescribed sequence of payment as mandatory and held that failure to use the credit during the relevant period defeated the plea of revenue neutrality, so pre-deposit of the excess exemption availed from 1-4-2008 onwards was required. A limitation plea was also regarded as prima facie unavailable at the stay stage. The dissent considered the matter revenue neutral and would have waived pre-deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236913