https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387722 On removal of capital goods on which Cenvat credit had been taken, the statutory requirement was treated as satisfied by reversing the credit originally availed, rather than by computing duty on the rate and value applicable on the date of clearance under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The Tribunal relied on the scheme of the provision, contemporaneous circulars, and prior decisions, including Siddharth Tubes, to hold that credit reversal was sufficient. For the February and March 2002 demand, the extended limitation period was unavailable because the clearances were disclosed in returns and audit records and there was no material of suppression or wilful misstatement. The demand and penalty were not sustained. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387722 On removal of capital goods on which Cenvat credit had been taken, the statutory requirement was treated as satisfied by reversing the credit originally availed, rather than by computing duty on the rate and value applicable on the date of clearance under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The Tribunal relied on the scheme of the provision, contemporaneous circulars, and prior decisions, including Siddharth Tubes, to hold that credit reversal was sufficient. For the February and March 2002 demand, the extended limitation period was unavailable because the clearances were disclosed in returns and audit records and there was no material of suppression or wilful misstatement. The demand and penalty were not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387722