https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753576 CENVAT credit was allowable on domestically procured excisable inputs because duty had actually been paid by the supplier, and the advance licence or authorisation scheme did not itself prohibit duty payment or credit. The procedural notification under Rule 19 was not a tariff exemption under Section 5A, so it did not bar availment of credit where duty was validly discharged. The plea that the controversy remained open due to earlier litigation also failed because the prior challenge had already been dismissed, including the further appeal in limine. The appellate challenge was therefore rejected and the order allowing credit and dropping recovery was sustained. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753576 CENVAT credit was allowable on domestically procured excisable inputs because duty had actually been paid by the supplier, and the advance licence or authorisation scheme did not itself prohibit duty payment or credit. The procedural notification under Rule 19 was not a tariff exemption under Section 5A, so it did not bar availment of credit where duty was validly discharged. The plea that the controversy remained open due to earlier litigation also failed because the prior challenge had already been dismissed, including the further appeal in limine. The appellate challenge was therefore rejected and the order allowing credit and dropping recovery was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753576