https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83831 Removal of Modvat inputs to another unit without reversing credit and without following the prescribed transfer procedure was treated as a substantive breach, supporting duty demand. The same unauthorized movement, done without prior permission or intimation to excise authorities, was treated as suppression and misstatement, making the extended limitation period available. The rules were also read as permitting the Additional Collector to exercise the Collector's powers for issuing notice and adjudication. Deliberate non-compliance further justified penalty, which was upheld as reasonable. The overall result stated in the text was that the duty demand, limitation objection, jurisdiction challenge, and penalty challenge all failed in favour of Revenue. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:10:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83831 Removal of Modvat inputs to another unit without reversing credit and without following the prescribed transfer procedure was treated as a substantive breach, supporting duty demand. The same unauthorized movement, done without prior permission or intimation to excise authorities, was treated as suppression and misstatement, making the extended limitation period available. The rules were also read as permitting the Additional Collector to exercise the Collector's powers for issuing notice and adjudication. Deliberate non-compliance further justified penalty, which was upheld as reasonable. The overall result stated in the text was that the duty demand, limitation objection, jurisdiction challenge, and penalty challenge all failed in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83831