https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52728 Removal of unutilised capital goods returned to the original supplier required restoration only of the Cenvat credit actually taken, not payment of any higher differential duty. The goods were rejected as unfit for use, the invoice described them as rejected, and the assessee had availed only 50% credit and paid duty equal to that credit on removal. The applicable Cenvat rules treated removal of capital goods as such on the basis that duty is payable as if the goods were manufactured in the factory, but the operative principle was that duty on capital goods removed without use could not exceed the credit allowed. No differential duty was payable. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:53:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52728 Removal of unutilised capital goods returned to the original supplier required restoration only of the Cenvat credit actually taken, not payment of any higher differential duty. The goods were rejected as unfit for use, the invoice described them as rejected, and the assessee had availed only 50% credit and paid duty equal to that credit on removal. The applicable Cenvat rules treated removal of capital goods as such on the basis that duty is payable as if the goods were manufactured in the factory, but the operative principle was that duty on capital goods removed without use could not exceed the credit allowed. No differential duty was payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52728