https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255739 Cenvat credit remained admissible where inputs were actually cleared on payment of duty, because Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) operated as a procedural option under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules and did not compel duty-free clearance. The recipient exporter's credit entitlement depended on duty actually paid by the supplier, and it could not be denied on the basis that the supplier might have used a different clearance route. The DGFT circular on terminal excise duty refund in deemed exports did not govern this separate Cenvat credit question. On that basis, the demand, penalties and adverse orders were set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:07:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255739 Cenvat credit remained admissible where inputs were actually cleared on payment of duty, because Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) operated as a procedural option under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules and did not compel duty-free clearance. The recipient exporter's credit entitlement depended on duty actually paid by the supplier, and it could not be denied on the basis that the supplier might have used a different clearance route. The DGFT circular on terminal excise duty refund in deemed exports did not govern this separate Cenvat credit question. On that basis, the demand, penalties and adverse orders were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255739