JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Pregnancy Test Kits classified under Chapter sub heading 3822.00 of the First Schedule to CETA 1985 for which they are availing Cenvat credit facilities relying upon the notification No. 6/2003 dt.1.3.2003. The notification was amended with effect from 1.3.2002 exempting the said goods. Relying upon the exemption notification the assessee was enjoying the facilities. The Commissioner issued show cause notice demanding a sum of Rs. 2,09,284/- on the ground that he was not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit and the goods manufactured by the assessee are not utilised during the relevant period. Accordingly, he passed an order based on the show cause notice dt.19.5.2004. Being aggrieved by the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, which appeal came to be allowed on the ground that no time limit is there to clear the finished products. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals dt.25.1.2005, the revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT, which appeal came to be dismissed relying upon the Judgment in Tafe Ltd. V. Cce 2006 (3) STT 319 (Bang-CESTAT), on the ground that no limitation applies to clear the goods manufactured by the assessee. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the decision of the CESTAT, in extending the benefit of CENVAT Credit to inputs lying unutilised inputs contained in semi-finished goods, and also on the inputs contained in the finished goods lying in stock in contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2002, is correct. 2. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal cannot be interfered with and that the question of law has to be answered against the revenue for the following reasons: Admittedly, by virtue of notification No. 6/2002, the assessee has utilised the credit and thereafter an exemption has been granted to such rules and it is also seen that there is no time limit prescribed by the appellant to sell the finished products. Therefore, we have to answer the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.