https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352047 The Tribunal held that Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable as there was no physical removal of goods from the factory premises in the case involving the transfer of capital goods and inputs to a joint venture. The demand for duty and penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on precedents establishing that duty liability arises only upon physical removal of goods. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352047 The Tribunal held that Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable as there was no physical removal of goods from the factory premises in the case involving the transfer of capital goods and inputs to a joint venture. The demand for duty and penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on precedents establishing that duty liability arises only upon physical removal of goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352047