https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125202 For the period in question, clearance of used capital goods did not attract a duty reversal obligation or adverse Cenvat credit consequences, and a later amendment requiring reversal on depreciated value could not operate retrospectively. The show cause notice also failed to specifically allege suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period and Section 11AC penalty were not sustainable. The excess duty payment was explained as arising from the differential rate applicable at clearance, leaving no basis for the demand or penalty. en-us Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125202 For the period in question, clearance of used capital goods did not attract a duty reversal obligation or adverse Cenvat credit consequences, and a later amendment requiring reversal on depreciated value could not operate retrospectively. The show cause notice also failed to specifically allege suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period and Section 11AC penalty were not sustainable. The excess duty payment was explained as arising from the differential rate applicable at clearance, leaving no basis for the demand or penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125202