https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438721 Payment of 8% of the value of exempted goods, where inputs are used in an intermediate product, was treated as equivalent to reversal of input credit and as compliance with the condition against availing credit. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was not denied merely because credit had allegedly been taken in breach of the condition. The same approach was consistent with the earlier Rule 57CC treatment of 8% payment as sufficient to satisfy non-availment of credit for exempted final products. Accordingly, the demand to pay 8% on the pressure sore prevention bed cleared without duty was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438721 Payment of 8% of the value of exempted goods, where inputs are used in an intermediate product, was treated as equivalent to reversal of input credit and as compliance with the condition against availing credit. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was not denied merely because credit had allegedly been taken in breach of the condition. The same approach was consistent with the earlier Rule 57CC treatment of 8% payment as sufficient to satisfy non-availment of credit for exempted final products. Accordingly, the demand to pay 8% on the pressure sore prevention bed cleared without duty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438721