https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340696 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs. It was held that the demand notice invoking Rule 4(4) of CCR, 2004 was unsustainable as the goods in question were inputs, not capital goods. The appellant had appropriately reversed the CENVAT credit on inputs post-exemption, refuting the allegation of availing double benefit. The judgment emphasized the legal interpretation of the rule and specific circumstances of the case, providing relief to the appellant and allowing the appeals with any consequential relief as per law. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340696 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs. It was held that the demand notice invoking Rule 4(4) of CCR, 2004 was unsustainable as the goods in question were inputs, not capital goods. The appellant had appropriately reversed the CENVAT credit on inputs post-exemption, refuting the allegation of availing double benefit. The judgment emphasized the legal interpretation of the rule and specific circumstances of the case, providing relief to the appellant and allowing the appeals with any consequential relief as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340696