https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121730 Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was examined in a stay application concerning returned finished goods taken back into the factory, Cenvat credit claimed under Rule 16(1), and duty paid on resale under the latter part of Rule 16(2). The demand was framed on the basis that an amount equal to the credit ought to have been paid, and there was a prima facie objection that the adjudication travelled beyond the show cause notice because Rule 16(3) had not been invoked therein. At the same time, the record showed an arguable Revenue case on reversal or equivalent payment, and the limitation plea did not fully negate the demand where the larger period was invoked. Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and a deposit was ordered. en-us Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121730 Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was examined in a stay application concerning returned finished goods taken back into the factory, Cenvat credit claimed under Rule 16(1), and duty paid on resale under the latter part of Rule 16(2). The demand was framed on the basis that an amount equal to the credit ought to have been paid, and there was a prima facie objection that the adjudication travelled beyond the show cause notice because Rule 16(3) had not been invoked therein. At the same time, the record showed an arguable Revenue case on reversal or equivalent payment, and the limitation plea did not fully negate the demand where the larger period was invoked. Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and a deposit was ordered. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121730