https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94255 Removal of inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) was held to attract only reversal of the credit already taken, because the legal fiction treats the user as a manufacturer only for that limited purpose. A subsequent enhancement in the excise rate did not create any additional duty liability beyond the credit originally availed at import. As no short levy or short payment arose, penalty under Rule 173Q was unsustainable. The Revenue's contrary precedent was distinguished on its facts and statutory context, and the impugned order was set aside with the penalty quashed. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:58:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94255 Removal of inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) was held to attract only reversal of the credit already taken, because the legal fiction treats the user as a manufacturer only for that limited purpose. A subsequent enhancement in the excise rate did not create any additional duty liability beyond the credit originally availed at import. As no short levy or short payment arose, penalty under Rule 173Q was unsustainable. The Revenue's contrary precedent was distinguished on its facts and statutory context, and the impugned order was set aside with the penalty quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94255