https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266709 Cash payment made for clearance of final products under the exemption notification could not be denied re-credit merely because the Revenue alleged wrong utilisation of CENVAT credit for outward GTA services. The notification required prior utilisation of available CENVAT credit and permitted payment of the balance in cash, so the cash component remained eligible for re-credit. Any dispute over admissibility or misuse of CENVAT credit had to be pursued separately under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and could not be used to defeat the notification benefit in the absence of independent proceedings or demonstrated prejudice to revenue. en-us Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266709 Cash payment made for clearance of final products under the exemption notification could not be denied re-credit merely because the Revenue alleged wrong utilisation of CENVAT credit for outward GTA services. The notification required prior utilisation of available CENVAT credit and permitted payment of the balance in cash, so the cash component remained eligible for re-credit. Any dispute over admissibility or misuse of CENVAT credit had to be pursued separately under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and could not be used to defeat the notification benefit in the absence of independent proceedings or demonstrated prejudice to revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266709