https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354219 Removal of inputs as such attracted reversal of Cenvat credit rather than independent payment of duty. The text states that credit of SED availed on 01.01.2002 was admissible because the inputs had been received in the factory during the relevant period, and the appellant had already reversed the BED component before debiting the SED component from admissible credit. On that basis, compliance with Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was treated as satisfied, and the confirmed demand and penalty were held unsustainable. The reversal already made for the relevant months and the SED debit on 01.01.2002 were sustained. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:49:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354219 Removal of inputs as such attracted reversal of Cenvat credit rather than independent payment of duty. The text states that credit of SED availed on 01.01.2002 was admissible because the inputs had been received in the factory during the relevant period, and the appellant had already reversed the BED component before debiting the SED component from admissible credit. On that basis, compliance with Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was treated as satisfied, and the confirmed demand and penalty were held unsustainable. The reversal already made for the relevant months and the SED debit on 01.01.2002 were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354219