https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337213 Transfer of a captive power plant to another legal entity, without physical movement of the capital goods from the factory premises, does not amount to "removal" for reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The operative test is physical movement of goods from one place to another; mere change in ownership is insufficient to attract the charging provision. On that basis, the provision was held inapplicable on the stated facts, and no amount equivalent to the credit taken on the capital goods was payable. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337213 Transfer of a captive power plant to another legal entity, without physical movement of the capital goods from the factory premises, does not amount to "removal" for reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The operative test is physical movement of goods from one place to another; mere change in ownership is insufficient to attract the charging provision. On that basis, the provision was held inapplicable on the stated facts, and no amount equivalent to the credit taken on the capital goods was payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337213