JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, holding that when the credit attributable to the inputs used in the exempted product is reversed, then there would not be any need for reversal of 8% of the sale value of the exempted products. 2. The assessee is a manufacture of pig iron. They take Cenvat credit on the inputs used. The pig iron is cleared on payment of duty on the basis of the CT-3 certificates. The revenue proceeded against the assessee and contended that the assessee ought to have reversed 8% of the sale value of the goods involved. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 1,500/- was imposed. An appeal was preferred by the revenue, which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane, 2008 (232) E.L.T. 37 (Tri.-LB) dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 3. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law : Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Cestat credit while admittedly the assessee has not maintained the accounts as stipulated under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules? 4. In the course of pendency of this appeal, Finance Act, 2010 amended Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and gave retrospective effect from 1st day of July, 2001 to the 28th day of February, 2002 and subsequently, from the 1st day of March, 2002 to the 9th day of September, 2004. Once the cenvat credit taken is reversed, there is no liability to pay excess duty at 8% or penalty, interest as directed by the Assessing Authority. That is, precisely what the authorities have held without this amendment. When once amendment is made to the said rules giving the said benefit and it is expressly made retrospectively, the amendment takes care of this case. 5. In that view of the matter, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.