https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788834 Mere issuance of an invoice for moulds does not amount to removal of capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 when the moulds remain physically in the factory and continue to be used in manufacture. On that footing, reversal of CENVAT credit is not attracted where the goods are retained as part of the production process. The discussion also notes that extended limitation depends on fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or intent to evade duty, and is not available where the matter is disclosed in statutory records and turns only on interpretation. Interest and penalty follow the fate of the underlying duty demand and require their own legal foundation. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:48:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788834 Mere issuance of an invoice for moulds does not amount to removal of capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 when the moulds remain physically in the factory and continue to be used in manufacture. On that footing, reversal of CENVAT credit is not attracted where the goods are retained as part of the production process. The discussion also notes that extended limitation depends on fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or intent to evade duty, and is not available where the matter is disclosed in statutory records and turns only on interpretation. Interest and penalty follow the fate of the underlying duty demand and require their own legal foundation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788834