https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3896 Where an air-conditioner had already been treated as part of the finished stamping, charging and pushing machinery, and duty on the composite machinery was paid after apportionment of value, its separate clearance could not be treated as removal of inputs as such. The demand under Rule 57F(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty also failed because it depended on that demand. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3896 Where an air-conditioner had already been treated as part of the finished stamping, charging and pushing machinery, and duty on the composite machinery was paid after apportionment of value, its separate clearance could not be treated as removal of inputs as such. The demand under Rule 57F(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty also failed because it depended on that demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3896