https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371658 Under the MODVAT framework, removal of inputs as such required duty payment equal to the credit availed under Rule 57F. The notice was found vague and inconsistent because it alternated between treatment of the clearances as inputs as such and as manufactured tablets. On the record, the appellant had already paid duty through invoices and reversed credit, and the total paid exceeded the demand; accordingly, no further duty demand or additional credit reversal was sustainable and the sums already paid were to be adjusted. As the demand failed and the record did not show suppression with intent to evade duty, the penalties also could not survive. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Dec 2018 06:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371658 Under the MODVAT framework, removal of inputs as such required duty payment equal to the credit availed under Rule 57F. The notice was found vague and inconsistent because it alternated between treatment of the clearances as inputs as such and as manufactured tablets. On the record, the appellant had already paid duty through invoices and reversed credit, and the total paid exceeded the demand; accordingly, no further duty demand or additional credit reversal was sustainable and the sums already paid were to be adjusted. As the demand failed and the record did not show suppression with intent to evade duty, the penalties also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371658