https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325255 Where imported inputs or capital goods were found defective and re-exported as such under bond, CENVAT credit already availed was not required to be reversed under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal relied on Board circulars recognising that inputs or capital goods removed for export under bond were not barred from such treatment, and treated the earlier Tribunal ruling on re-export of defective imports as applicable. The contrary Supreme Court authority was distinguished on facts because it did not concern re-export of defective imported goods. On that basis, the demand and penalty based solely on non-reversal could not survive. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325255 Where imported inputs or capital goods were found defective and re-exported as such under bond, CENVAT credit already availed was not required to be reversed under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal relied on Board circulars recognising that inputs or capital goods removed for export under bond were not barred from such treatment, and treated the earlier Tribunal ruling on re-export of defective imports as applicable. The contrary Supreme Court authority was distinguished on facts because it did not concern re-export of defective imported goods. On that basis, the demand and penalty based solely on non-reversal could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325255