https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371774 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the exemption under Notification No. 14/2002-CE was available to the appellant as no Cenvat credit was taken, and the input fabrics were deemed duty paid under Explanation-II. The Tribunal emphasized that Notification No. 3/2003-CE did not have retrospective application, and legislative intent was to extend the exemption benefit without requiring documentary proof of duty payment. The impugned order was set aside, following the precedent established in the Larger Bench judgment of Arvind Products Ltd. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371774 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the exemption under Notification No. 14/2002-CE was available to the appellant as no Cenvat credit was taken, and the input fabrics were deemed duty paid under Explanation-II. The Tribunal emphasized that Notification No. 3/2003-CE did not have retrospective application, and legislative intent was to extend the exemption benefit without requiring documentary proof of duty payment. The impugned order was set aside, following the precedent established in the Larger Bench judgment of Arvind Products Ltd. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371774