https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3524 An exemption dispute under Notification No. 3/2001 concerned whether credit had to be reversed for inputs lying in stock and in semi-finished or finished goods when opting for exemption. The Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee also manufactured dutiable papers, used common inputs for both exempted and dutiable products, and had already reversed credit on inputs used in exempted papers was ative. On that basis, the demand was not sustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed because no substantial question of law arose. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3524 An exemption dispute under Notification No. 3/2001 concerned whether credit had to be reversed for inputs lying in stock and in semi-finished or finished goods when opting for exemption. The Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee also manufactured dutiable papers, used common inputs for both exempted and dutiable products, and had already reversed credit on inputs used in exempted papers was ative. On that basis, the demand was not sustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed because no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3524