<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (10) TMI 54 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31951</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit validly taken and utilised when the final product was dutiable was not required to be reversed merely because the product later became exempt. The applicable scheme treated lawfully earned credit as indefeasible unless it was taken or used wrongly or irregularly, and the recovery provisions for wrong credit did not apply where credit was valid at the relevant time. In the absence of a specific statutory reversal requirement or a one-to-one correlation between inputs and the exempted final product, the subsequent exemption did not create a reversal liability. The credit was therefore retained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:45:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 54 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31951</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit validly taken and utilised when the final product was dutiable was not required to be reversed merely because the product later became exempt. The applicable scheme treated lawfully earned credit as indefeasible unless it was taken or used wrongly or irregularly, and the recovery provisions for wrong credit did not apply where credit was valid at the relevant time. In the absence of a specific statutory reversal requirement or a one-to-one correlation between inputs and the exempted final product, the subsequent exemption did not create a reversal liability. The credit was therefore retained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>