https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338105 Credit validly taken on inputs, work-in-process and finished goods while the final product was dutiable was held not to be wiped out merely because exemption was later opted under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, so no reversal was required for the relevant period; the later amendment imposing a specific reversal obligation was treated as prospective. On the refund issue, where the assessee had paid the amount in cash and could not meaningfully utilise re-credit because the unit was operating under exemption, the Tribunal held that refund had to be granted in cash and not by mere re-credit to the Cenvat Credit Account. Revenue's challenge failed on both points. en-us Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338105 Credit validly taken on inputs, work-in-process and finished goods while the final product was dutiable was held not to be wiped out merely because exemption was later opted under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, so no reversal was required for the relevant period; the later amendment imposing a specific reversal obligation was treated as prospective. On the refund issue, where the assessee had paid the amount in cash and could not meaningfully utilise re-credit because the unit was operating under exemption, the Tribunal held that refund had to be granted in cash and not by mere re-credit to the Cenvat Credit Account. Revenue's challenge failed on both points. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338105