https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328726 During June 2001 to February 2003, removal of inputs as such on which CENVAT credit had been taken attracted duty under the unamended Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002, requiring payment equal to the duty leviable on the goods at the applicable valuation basis. The later amendment from 01.03.2003, which shifted the liability to reversal of credit availed, did not apply retrospectively to earlier removals. The appellate authority therefore applied the correct rule for the relevant period, and the duty demand was sustained. en-us Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328726 During June 2001 to February 2003, removal of inputs as such on which CENVAT credit had been taken attracted duty under the unamended Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002, requiring payment equal to the duty leviable on the goods at the applicable valuation basis. The later amendment from 01.03.2003, which shifted the liability to reversal of credit availed, did not apply retrospectively to earlier removals. The appellate authority therefore applied the correct rule for the relevant period, and the duty demand was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328726