https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116350 Reversal of credit on capital goods removed as such from the factory was treated as sufficient compliance under the relevant credit scheme, so a separate duty demand under Rule 57S(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not sustainable on the facts noted. The analysis relied on the Board circular stating that, for removal of inputs or capital goods as such, credit reversal alone discharged the obligation, and it also drew support from the earlier Larger Bench view on comparable removals of inputs. The resulting effect was that no further duty survived and the assessee's position was upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:27:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116350 Reversal of credit on capital goods removed as such from the factory was treated as sufficient compliance under the relevant credit scheme, so a separate duty demand under Rule 57S(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not sustainable on the facts noted. The analysis relied on the Board circular stating that, for removal of inputs or capital goods as such, credit reversal alone discharged the obligation, and it also drew support from the earlier Larger Bench view on comparable removals of inputs. The resulting effect was that no further duty survived and the assessee's position was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116350