https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249398 Removal of bottles and crates as such after CENVAT credit had been taken was treated as attracting duty reversal, interest and penalty where the assessee could not show that the goods cleared were not the credit-availment goods and the clearances were made under private documents without proper excise invoices. The limitation objection based on revenue neutrality was rejected because the assessee had not followed the mandatory accounting, invoicing and return-filing requirements, which supported invocation of the extended period. Recovery was also held permissible before the later amendment, since wrongly taken or utilized credit remained recoverable under the existing rule and the amendment was treated as clarificatory. en-us Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249398 Removal of bottles and crates as such after CENVAT credit had been taken was treated as attracting duty reversal, interest and penalty where the assessee could not show that the goods cleared were not the credit-availment goods and the clearances were made under private documents without proper excise invoices. The limitation objection based on revenue neutrality was rejected because the assessee had not followed the mandatory accounting, invoicing and return-filing requirements, which supported invocation of the extended period. Recovery was also held permissible before the later amendment, since wrongly taken or utilized credit remained recoverable under the existing rule and the amendment was treated as clarificatory. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249398