https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169927 Capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken were not treated as removed from the factory where the machinery remained installed in the same premises after a lease arrangement, and the department had approved the layout showing the installation. On those facts, mere leasing of part of the premises and continued use of the same installed machinery in manufacture did not constitute removal under Rule 57-S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because there was no actual removal and the relevant facts had been disclosed, the basis for alleging suppression, invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposing penalty was not made out. The duty demand, extended limitation and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 14:39:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169927 Capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken were not treated as removed from the factory where the machinery remained installed in the same premises after a lease arrangement, and the department had approved the layout showing the installation. On those facts, mere leasing of part of the premises and continued use of the same installed machinery in manufacture did not constitute removal under Rule 57-S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because there was no actual removal and the relevant facts had been disclosed, the basis for alleging suppression, invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposing penalty was not made out. The duty demand, extended limitation and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169927