https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124992 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the reversal of credit on the removal of capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that no reversal was required for used Cenvated capital goods upon removal. Additionally, the application of Rule 3(5) of the CCR, 2004 on the removal of used capital goods was clarified, stating that worn-out capital goods were not to be considered as capital goods "as such." The judgment ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and granting them a refund of the duty paid upon removal. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124992 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the reversal of credit on the removal of capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that no reversal was required for used Cenvated capital goods upon removal. Additionally, the application of Rule 3(5) of the CCR, 2004 on the removal of used capital goods was clarified, stating that worn-out capital goods were not to be considered as capital goods "as such." The judgment ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and granting them a refund of the duty paid upon removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124992