https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81235 Removal of MODVAT-covered inputs to another unit attracted duty under Rule 57F(1) because the deeming fiction treated the inputs as if manufactured in the factory, so duty was chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of removal and could not be reduced merely by reversing credit. Inputs contained in finished products taken out as samples for testing were also held dutiable, as the goods were treated as removed for home consumption under Rule 49 and the non-marketability precedent was distinguished on the facts. The duty demands were therefore sustained on both issues and the appeal failed in full. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:31:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81235 Removal of MODVAT-covered inputs to another unit attracted duty under Rule 57F(1) because the deeming fiction treated the inputs as if manufactured in the factory, so duty was chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of removal and could not be reduced merely by reversing credit. Inputs contained in finished products taken out as samples for testing were also held dutiable, as the goods were treated as removed for home consumption under Rule 49 and the non-marketability precedent was distinguished on the facts. The duty demands were therefore sustained on both issues and the appeal failed in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81235