https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173886 No substantial question of law arose on the Revenue's challenge to Modvat credit for replacement of colour picture tubes, because the Tribunal had already applied its earlier final order to the same factual controversy. It held that the demand could not stand unless it was shown that repaired defective tubes were replaced by new tubes cleared without payment of duty, and that factual basis was not established. The penalty under Rule 209A also failed because the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly held that the provision was not applicable to limited companies. The Revenue's appeal was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2018 19:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173886 No substantial question of law arose on the Revenue's challenge to Modvat credit for replacement of colour picture tubes, because the Tribunal had already applied its earlier final order to the same factual controversy. It held that the demand could not stand unless it was shown that repaired defective tubes were replaced by new tubes cleared without payment of duty, and that factual basis was not established. The penalty under Rule 209A also failed because the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly held that the provision was not applicable to limited companies. The Revenue's appeal was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173886