https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346769 Credit validly taken was not required to be reversed merely because the final products became exempted subsequently under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Madras HC treated the issue as concluded by an earlier Division Bench ruling, which had also not been disturbed by the Supreme Court, and therefore rejected the Revenue's contention that later exemption triggered reversal of credit already validly availed. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:32:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346769 Credit validly taken was not required to be reversed merely because the final products became exempted subsequently under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Madras HC treated the issue as concluded by an earlier Division Bench ruling, which had also not been disturbed by the Supreme Court, and therefore rejected the Revenue's contention that later exemption triggered reversal of credit already validly availed. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346769