https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78698 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the term "as such" in Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules should be interpreted to consider the depreciated value of capital goods. The appellants were not required to pay duty equivalent to the credit initially availed, and the duty should reflect the wear and tear of the goods. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential duty, affirming that the duty liability was correctly assessed and paid by the appellants. The decision aligned with judicial precedents and the legislative intent behind the CENVAT Credit Rules. en-us Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78698 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the term "as such" in Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules should be interpreted to consider the depreciated value of capital goods. The appellants were not required to pay duty equivalent to the credit initially availed, and the duty should reflect the wear and tear of the goods. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential duty, affirming that the duty liability was correctly assessed and paid by the appellants. The decision aligned with judicial precedents and the legislative intent behind the CENVAT Credit Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78698