https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343511 Where input mercury on which CENVAT credit had been taken was later sold on closure of the plant, the Court treated the clearance as removal of inputs as such under the CENVAT Credit Rules and held that duty liability arose on removal, with corresponding interest. It further upheld the equal penalty, noting that the sale was made without invoice and no mitigating circumstances justified interference with the statutory penalty. The demand for duty, interest and penalty was therefore sustained against the assessee. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343511 Where input mercury on which CENVAT credit had been taken was later sold on closure of the plant, the Court treated the clearance as removal of inputs as such under the CENVAT Credit Rules and held that duty liability arose on removal, with corresponding interest. It further upheld the equal penalty, noting that the sale was made without invoice and no mitigating circumstances justified interference with the statutory penalty. The demand for duty, interest and penalty was therefore sustained against the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343511