https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117989 The dispute concerned whether sale of a captive power plant with unused capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken, amounted to removal of capital goods requiring reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C). The Tribunal read "removed" in light of Rule 9(1) and Rule 49, noting that removal is not confined to physical shifting and that the goods were sold with the land and excluded from the factory, supporting a removal-based credit reversal view. It also recorded conflicting Tribunal decisions on the same expression and directed the matter to the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench, leaving valuation and penalty issues open. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117989 The dispute concerned whether sale of a captive power plant with unused capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken, amounted to removal of capital goods requiring reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C). The Tribunal read "removed" in light of Rule 9(1) and Rule 49, noting that removal is not confined to physical shifting and that the goods were sold with the land and excluded from the factory, supporting a removal-based credit reversal view. It also recorded conflicting Tribunal decisions on the same expression and directed the matter to the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench, leaving valuation and penalty issues open. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117989