https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331868 Cenvat credit taken on inputs lying in stock, in process, or contained in finished goods was not required to be reversed when the manufacturer opted for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was inapplicable because the exemption was not linked to a value- or quantity-based clearance limit in a financial year, and Rule 6(1) also did not apply where the inputs were used in the manufacture of goods that were dutiable at the time of such use. The factual position was not disputed by the Revenue, and the Larger Bench view, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, was treated as applicable. en-us Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2016 17:32:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331868 Cenvat credit taken on inputs lying in stock, in process, or contained in finished goods was not required to be reversed when the manufacturer opted for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was inapplicable because the exemption was not linked to a value- or quantity-based clearance limit in a financial year, and Rule 6(1) also did not apply where the inputs were used in the manufacture of goods that were dutiable at the time of such use. The factual position was not disputed by the Revenue, and the Larger Bench view, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, was treated as applicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331868