https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83271 For removals of inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) before the 1-3-1992 amendment, duty was chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual clearance, because the rule required payment of appropriate excise duty as if the inputs had been manufactured in the factory and the proviso only ensured that duty would not fall below the Modvat credit taken. The later insertion of sub-rule (1A) indicated a changed position from 1-3-1992, but it did not govern removals made earlier. The Revenue's view was accepted and the duty demand was restored. en-us Tue, 31 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83271 For removals of inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) before the 1-3-1992 amendment, duty was chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual clearance, because the rule required payment of appropriate excise duty as if the inputs had been manufactured in the factory and the proviso only ensured that duty would not fall below the Modvat credit taken. The later insertion of sub-rule (1A) indicated a changed position from 1-3-1992, but it did not govern removals made earlier. The Revenue's view was accepted and the duty demand was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83271