https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267071 Unauthorized removal of CENVAT-credit availed inputs from the factory to an outside godown without required permission, proper documents or reversal of credit attracted confiscation under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; the redemption fine was found excessive and reduced. On the main appellant's credit, interest and penalty exposure, the Tribunal required verification of whether the inputs were in fact used in manufacture or cleared on payment of duty, and indicated that penalty would not arise if such factual use was established, though interest could still be payable for the unauthorized removal period. Penalties on the other appellants were set aside because they had been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules rather than the correct penal framework. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267071 Unauthorized removal of CENVAT-credit availed inputs from the factory to an outside godown without required permission, proper documents or reversal of credit attracted confiscation under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; the redemption fine was found excessive and reduced. On the main appellant's credit, interest and penalty exposure, the Tribunal required verification of whether the inputs were in fact used in manufacture or cleared on payment of duty, and indicated that penalty would not arise if such factual use was established, though interest could still be payable for the unauthorized removal period. Penalties on the other appellants were set aside because they had been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules rather than the correct penal framework. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267071