https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76385 Cenvat credit was not required to be reversed where inputs were damaged inside the factory during the manufacturing process, because Rule 3(4) applied only to inputs removed as such and not to inputs consumed or damaged in manufacture. The reasoning treated inputs used in or in relation to manufacture as retaining credit eligibility absent a specific statutory basis for reversal, and remission provisions for goods lost or destroyed did not themselves create such liability. As there was no removal of inputs as such without duty, the demand for reversal failed, and the consequential penalty under Section 11AC was also unsustainable. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76385 Cenvat credit was not required to be reversed where inputs were damaged inside the factory during the manufacturing process, because Rule 3(4) applied only to inputs removed as such and not to inputs consumed or damaged in manufacture. The reasoning treated inputs used in or in relation to manufacture as retaining credit eligibility absent a specific statutory basis for reversal, and remission provisions for goods lost or destroyed did not themselves create such liability. As there was no removal of inputs as such without duty, the demand for reversal failed, and the consequential penalty under Section 11AC was also unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76385