https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31876 CESTAT, Mumbai (AT) held that the phrase "as such" in Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR must not be confined to new or unused capital goods; doing so would render terms like testing, repairing and reconditioning redundant and contradict SC precedents. The tribunal ruled that reversal of input tax credit claimed on capital goods is required when such goods are removed for repair, testing or reconditioning at job-workers' premises, irrespective of whether the capital goods are used or unused. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31876 CESTAT, Mumbai (AT) held that the phrase "as such" in Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR must not be confined to new or unused capital goods; doing so would render terms like testing, repairing and reconditioning redundant and contradict SC precedents. The tribunal ruled that reversal of input tax credit claimed on capital goods is required when such goods are removed for repair, testing or reconditioning at job-workers' premises, irrespective of whether the capital goods are used or unused. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31876