https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785587 Demand for recovery of CENVAT credit alleged as written off inputs is analysed on the basis that mere accounting diminution or write-down for tax or accounting purposes does not establish that inputs were physically removed or rendered unusable; absence of evidence of physical removal defeats invocation of an extended limitation for recovery. Consequently, an order seeking reversal of credit on that basis cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, applying the principle that evidentiary proof of removal, not mere bookkeeping adjustments, is essential for credit reversal and extended period invocation. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:26:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785587 Demand for recovery of CENVAT credit alleged as written off inputs is analysed on the basis that mere accounting diminution or write-down for tax or accounting purposes does not establish that inputs were physically removed or rendered unusable; absence of evidence of physical removal defeats invocation of an extended limitation for recovery. Consequently, an order seeking reversal of credit on that basis cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, applying the principle that evidentiary proof of removal, not mere bookkeeping adjustments, is essential for credit reversal and extended period invocation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785587