https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767954 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not required to reverse the CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods provided to contractors for mine development, as these supplies did not constitute "removal" under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for disregarding binding precedents and emphasized the necessity of adhering to established judicial decisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, affirming that Rule 3(5) was inapplicable in this context. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767954 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not required to reverse the CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods provided to contractors for mine development, as these supplies did not constitute "removal" under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for disregarding binding precedents and emphasized the necessity of adhering to established judicial decisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, affirming that Rule 3(5) was inapplicable in this context. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767954