https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31617 Withdrawal of a notification condition barring Cenvat credit operated prospectively and did not revive credit on inputs already lying in stock, in process, or contained in final products on 1-3-2003. The tribunal held that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not apply because no credit had accrued before that date, and Rule 3(2) was also inapplicable on the facts. Allowing such credit would have given the notification retrospective effect, so denial of credit was sustained. Penalty was, however, set aside because the dispute involved a bona fide interpretation of the Modvat/Cenvat scheme and the effect of the notification change. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31617 Withdrawal of a notification condition barring Cenvat credit operated prospectively and did not revive credit on inputs already lying in stock, in process, or contained in final products on 1-3-2003. The tribunal held that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not apply because no credit had accrued before that date, and Rule 3(2) was also inapplicable on the facts. Allowing such credit would have given the notification retrospective effect, so denial of credit was sustained. Penalty was, however, set aside because the dispute involved a bona fide interpretation of the Modvat/Cenvat scheme and the effect of the notification change. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31617