https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=503 The dispute concerned whether sale of a captive power plant together with stored capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken but which had never been put to use, constituted "removal" of capital goods requiring reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. One view treated transfer of the plant and associated capital goods as removal from the factory even without physical lifting, while the competing view required actual physical removal rather than mere transfer of ownership or possession. The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merits and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, leaving valuation and penalty questions open. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=503 The dispute concerned whether sale of a captive power plant together with stored capital goods, on which Modvat credit had been taken but which had never been put to use, constituted "removal" of capital goods requiring reversal of credit under Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. One view treated transfer of the plant and associated capital goods as removal from the factory even without physical lifting, while the competing view required actual physical removal rather than mere transfer of ownership or possession. The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merits and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, leaving valuation and penalty questions open. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=503