https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114536 Removal of inputs as such after availment of Cenvat credit attracted duty on the transaction value at the time and place of removal, because Rule 3(4) linked valuation to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act where the goods were sold. The earlier Rule 57F(1)(ii) decisions were distinguished on the basis of materially different wording, and the Board circular was treated as consistent with transaction value. The original manufacturer's invoice value was not the measure applied. A contrary coordinate-bench view led to reference of the valuation issue to a Larger Bench. en-us Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2012 14:55:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114536 Removal of inputs as such after availment of Cenvat credit attracted duty on the transaction value at the time and place of removal, because Rule 3(4) linked valuation to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act where the goods were sold. The earlier Rule 57F(1)(ii) decisions were distinguished on the basis of materially different wording, and the Board circular was treated as consistent with transaction value. The original manufacturer's invoice value was not the measure applied. A contrary coordinate-bench view led to reference of the valuation issue to a Larger Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114536