https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239803 Removal of obsolete Cenvat-credit availed inputs as such was treated as a clearance attracting duty on the credit originally taken under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and the merits demand was sustained on that basis. However, the extended period of limitation was held unavailable because the dispute arose from interpretation of the rule, the assessee had disclosed the material facts during audit, and there was no fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty. On that reasoning, the demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239803 Removal of obsolete Cenvat-credit availed inputs as such was treated as a clearance attracting duty on the credit originally taken under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and the merits demand was sustained on that basis. However, the extended period of limitation was held unavailable because the dispute arose from interpretation of the rule, the assessee had disclosed the material facts during audit, and there was no fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty. On that reasoning, the demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239803