https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188078 Where capital goods on which Cenvat credit had been taken were removed from the factory after use, the credit attributable to those goods was held reversible under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and interest on the reversed credit followed. The tribunal relied on the Larger Bench view and found the first appellate authority had applied an incorrect version of the rule and an erroneous understanding of the amendment. Penalty was nevertheless not sustained because the dispute was interpretational and required authoritative clarification, so penal consequences were not warranted on the facts. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188078 Where capital goods on which Cenvat credit had been taken were removed from the factory after use, the credit attributable to those goods was held reversible under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and interest on the reversed credit followed. The tribunal relied on the Larger Bench view and found the first appellate authority had applied an incorrect version of the rule and an erroneous understanding of the amendment. Penalty was nevertheless not sustained because the dispute was interpretational and required authoritative clarification, so penal consequences were not warranted on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188078