https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264848 Removal of used capital goods to a sister concern attracted differential duty on a depreciation-based valuation using the written down value method, consistent with Board circulars and the settled view followed by the Tribunal and Madras High Court. The duty confirmation was upheld because allowing clearance without appropriate duty adjustment would be inconsistent with the credit scheme. Interest was also sustained. Penalty was waived on the facts and circumstances, reflecting a lenient approach despite confirmation of the underlying duty liability. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264848 Removal of used capital goods to a sister concern attracted differential duty on a depreciation-based valuation using the written down value method, consistent with Board circulars and the settled view followed by the Tribunal and Madras High Court. The duty confirmation was upheld because allowing clearance without appropriate duty adjustment would be inconsistent with the credit scheme. Interest was also sustained. Penalty was waived on the facts and circumstances, reflecting a lenient approach despite confirmation of the underlying duty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264848