https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3559 CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs remained admissible when finished goods were exported under bond under Rule 19 read with Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), because the export procedure did not prohibit such credit merely since some inputs were also procured without duty. The A.R.E.-2 form was only a common export document for rebate and bond exports, and its certification did not create a substantive bar to credit. The restriction on input credit applied where rebate or drawback was claimed, or where exports were made under the DEEC scheme; as none of those situations existed, reversal of credit was not required and denial of credit was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3559 CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs remained admissible when finished goods were exported under bond under Rule 19 read with Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), because the export procedure did not prohibit such credit merely since some inputs were also procured without duty. The A.R.E.-2 form was only a common export document for rebate and bond exports, and its certification did not create a substantive bar to credit. The restriction on input credit applied where rebate or drawback was claimed, or where exports were made under the DEEC scheme; as none of those situations existed, reversal of credit was not required and denial of credit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3559