https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118923 Duty on removal of capital goods after availing Cenvat credit could not be applied retrospectively where the amended Rule 3(4) requiring payment of an amount equal to the credit availed came into force only on 1-3-2003, and the first clearance occurred before that date. On the later clearance, the record did not clearly bring that removal within the framed issue, and existing authority noted no basis for demanding duty on Cenvated capital goods removed after use in manufacturing. The extended period of limitation was not prima facie available because the record showed no finding of intent to evade duty; reliance on the earlier rule and a Board circular also negatived suppression. Interim relief was granted and the duty and penalty demands were stayed. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:12:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118923 Duty on removal of capital goods after availing Cenvat credit could not be applied retrospectively where the amended Rule 3(4) requiring payment of an amount equal to the credit availed came into force only on 1-3-2003, and the first clearance occurred before that date. On the later clearance, the record did not clearly bring that removal within the framed issue, and existing authority noted no basis for demanding duty on Cenvated capital goods removed after use in manufacturing. The extended period of limitation was not prima facie available because the record showed no finding of intent to evade duty; reliance on the earlier rule and a Board circular also negatived suppression. Interim relief was granted and the duty and penalty demands were stayed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118923