https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435048 Scrap removed to a job worker under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and converted into intermediate goods returned on payment of duty was not liable to a separate duty demand, as the job-work procedure applied and the initial removal was not a dutiable clearance. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the removals and return clearances were reflected in delivery challans and records, and no positive suppression of facts or intent to evade duty was proved. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:46:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435048 Scrap removed to a job worker under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and converted into intermediate goods returned on payment of duty was not liable to a separate duty demand, as the job-work procedure applied and the initial removal was not a dutiable clearance. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the removals and return clearances were reflected in delivery challans and records, and no positive suppression of facts or intent to evade duty was proved. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435048