https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209830 Goods lawfully removed from a factory to a warehouse under the warehousing provisions were not treated as exempted goods for Rule 6 purposes, so no liability arose to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit on that removal. The later insertion in Rule 6(3)(a) could not be applied retrospectively to create liability for the earlier period. Where the goods were moved under valid warehousing documents, duly re-warehoused, and supported by proper certificates and receipts, the extended period of limitation was also unavailable because there was no suppression or procedural irregularity. The Revenue challenge therefore failed and the demand was dropped. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209830 Goods lawfully removed from a factory to a warehouse under the warehousing provisions were not treated as exempted goods for Rule 6 purposes, so no liability arose to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit on that removal. The later insertion in Rule 6(3)(a) could not be applied retrospectively to create liability for the earlier period. Where the goods were moved under valid warehousing documents, duly re-warehoused, and supported by proper certificates and receipts, the extended period of limitation was also unavailable because there was no suppression or procedural irregularity. The Revenue challenge therefore failed and the demand was dropped. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209830