https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330962 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that physical removal of goods was necessary for reversal of credit. It held that CBEC Circular No. 77/99-Cus. did not apply to credit transfer for 100% EOUs. The transfer of credit from a DTA unit to a 100% EOU upon reorganization was permitted, supported by case law precedents. The Tribunal also found in favor of the appellant regarding the limitation on the recovery of unutilized credit after conversion to EOU, concluding that there was no willful misstatement. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330962 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that physical removal of goods was necessary for reversal of credit. It held that CBEC Circular No. 77/99-Cus. did not apply to credit transfer for 100% EOUs. The transfer of credit from a DTA unit to a 100% EOU upon reorganization was permitted, supported by case law precedents. The Tribunal also found in favor of the appellant regarding the limitation on the recovery of unutilized credit after conversion to EOU, concluding that there was no willful misstatement. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330962