https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335509 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant had already reversed the credit availed on the capital goods as per the pre-amended provisions, and there was no justification for demanding any extra amount. The Tribunal found that Rule 3 (5) was not applicable in this case as the goods were cleared after prolonged use and could not be considered as clearance as such. The decision was based on a clear interpretation of legal provisions and established case laws, emphasizing that Rule 3 (5) should not be used to collect additional revenue. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335509 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant had already reversed the credit availed on the capital goods as per the pre-amended provisions, and there was no justification for demanding any extra amount. The Tribunal found that Rule 3 (5) was not applicable in this case as the goods were cleared after prolonged use and could not be considered as clearance as such. The decision was based on a clear interpretation of legal provisions and established case laws, emphasizing that Rule 3 (5) should not be used to collect additional revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335509