https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1698 After amendment of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the provision no longer required payment of the amount attributable to inputs or capital goods removed as such on the date of removal. On that interpretation, interest could not be demanded from the date of clearance merely because payment was made later, and the related penalty also could not survive once the principal demand itself was unsustainable. The CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the order in favour of the assessee and rejected the Revenue's challenge. en-us Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1698 After amendment of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the provision no longer required payment of the amount attributable to inputs or capital goods removed as such on the date of removal. On that interpretation, interest could not be demanded from the date of clearance merely because payment was made later, and the related penalty also could not survive once the principal demand itself was unsustainable. The CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the order in favour of the assessee and rejected the Revenue's challenge. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1698