https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116042 Under the pre-amendment regime, inputs removed as such attracted only reversal of the credit taken, and a duty demand based on assessable value under Section 4 was not sustainable; that demand was set aside. After the amendment to Rule 57AB, capital goods removed as such attracted duty at the tariff rate applicable on removal, even if only part of the credit had been availed; that demand was upheld. Penalty was also set aside because the non-payment arose from a bona fide interpretation of the amended rule and there was no intent to evade duty. en-us Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:08:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116042 Under the pre-amendment regime, inputs removed as such attracted only reversal of the credit taken, and a duty demand based on assessable value under Section 4 was not sustainable; that demand was set aside. After the amendment to Rule 57AB, capital goods removed as such attracted duty at the tariff rate applicable on removal, even if only part of the credit had been availed; that demand was upheld. Penalty was also set aside because the non-payment arose from a bona fide interpretation of the amended rule and there was no intent to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116042