https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33777 Duty recovery on removal of capital goods as such was held barred by limitation because the assessee had disclosed the clearance and duty payment in its monthly return, so invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified. Although Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 allowed utilization of credit only to the extent actually taken and the payment on clearance was treated as irregular credit use recoverable under Rule 12, the disclosed facts prevented extended limitation. The demand therefore failed, and the consequential interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC also could not survive. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33777 Duty recovery on removal of capital goods as such was held barred by limitation because the assessee had disclosed the clearance and duty payment in its monthly return, so invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified. Although Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 allowed utilization of credit only to the extent actually taken and the payment on clearance was treated as irregular credit use recoverable under Rule 12, the disclosed facts prevented extended limitation. The demand therefore failed, and the consequential interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33777