https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113881 On removal of capital goods after the amendment to Rule 57F(1)(ii), the amount payable was confined to reversal of the credit actually availed at receipt, because the amended rule required payment equal to that credit and did not authorise duty computation at the rate prevailing on the date of removal. Earlier pre-amendment authority under Polar Industries was inapplicable, and the Larger Bench view in Asia Brown Boveri supported the same construction. The Revenue's short levy theory was rejected, and the assessee was held liable only to reverse the credit originally taken. en-us Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2012 18:53:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113881 On removal of capital goods after the amendment to Rule 57F(1)(ii), the amount payable was confined to reversal of the credit actually availed at receipt, because the amended rule required payment equal to that credit and did not authorise duty computation at the rate prevailing on the date of removal. Earlier pre-amendment authority under Polar Industries was inapplicable, and the Larger Bench view in Asia Brown Boveri supported the same construction. The Revenue's short levy theory was rejected, and the assessee was held liable only to reverse the credit originally taken. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113881