https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248781 Clearance of inputs as such to a 100% EOU against CT-3/CT-1 certificates was treated as covered by the export-clearance mechanism, and the Tribunal held that reversal of CENVAT credit was not payable on merits. It reasoned that such clearances could not be distinguished from comparable movements under the applicable notification and Rule 19(2), where duty-free clearance was permitted on the prescribed certificate. The Tribunal also held that the demand was time-barred because the transaction was revenue neutral: the recipient EOU could have taken equivalent credit or sought refund, so invocation of the extended period was unjustified. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248781 Clearance of inputs as such to a 100% EOU against CT-3/CT-1 certificates was treated as covered by the export-clearance mechanism, and the Tribunal held that reversal of CENVAT credit was not payable on merits. It reasoned that such clearances could not be distinguished from comparable movements under the applicable notification and Rule 19(2), where duty-free clearance was permitted on the prescribed certificate. The Tribunal also held that the demand was time-barred because the transaction was revenue neutral: the recipient EOU could have taken equivalent credit or sought refund, so invocation of the extended period was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248781