https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380622 The appellant successfully appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods transferred under a scheme of arrangement. The Tribunal held that physical removal of goods is crucial for credit reversal under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since there was no physical removal of the capital goods and the transfer maintained Revenue neutrality, the appellant was not required to reverse the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief and ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 May 2019 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380622 The appellant successfully appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods transferred under a scheme of arrangement. The Tribunal held that physical removal of goods is crucial for credit reversal under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since there was no physical removal of the capital goods and the transfer maintained Revenue neutrality, the appellant was not required to reverse the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief and ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380622