https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4168 Conflicting coordinate Bench views existed on whether Cenvat credit validly taken on inputs lying in stock, in process, or contained in finished goods must be reversed when the final product becomes exempt from duty. One line of authority treated such credit as indefeasible once properly availed, while another required reversal or recovery of credit relatable to inputs remaining in stock or work-in-process on the date of exemption. Because of this divergence, the Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue on merits and directed that the matter be placed before the President for constitution of a Larger Bench. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4168 Conflicting coordinate Bench views existed on whether Cenvat credit validly taken on inputs lying in stock, in process, or contained in finished goods must be reversed when the final product becomes exempt from duty. One line of authority treated such credit as indefeasible once properly availed, while another required reversal or recovery of credit relatable to inputs remaining in stock or work-in-process on the date of exemption. Because of this divergence, the Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue on merits and directed that the matter be placed before the President for constitution of a Larger Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4168