https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358935 The court quashed the impugned order due to insufficient consideration of the petitioner's defense regarding the deemed removal of capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It emphasized the need for thorough consideration of submissions and legal precedents, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the revenue department. The court directed a personal hearing for the petitioner and highlighted the importance of a clear stance in decision-making processes. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed without costs, stressing the significance of addressing all relevant contentions for lawful outcomes. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358935 The court quashed the impugned order due to insufficient consideration of the petitioner's defense regarding the deemed removal of capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It emphasized the need for thorough consideration of submissions and legal precedents, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the revenue department. The court directed a personal hearing for the petitioner and highlighted the importance of a clear stance in decision-making processes. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed without costs, stressing the significance of addressing all relevant contentions for lawful outcomes. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358935