https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53831 Inputs cleared to a 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate could not claim exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. because the exemption required direct receipt of excisable goods from the factory of manufacture, and the goods had been purchased from the market after credit was taken. On removal of inputs as such, duty was not confined to the credit originally taken; under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, liability is the duty leviable on the date of removal, computed with reference to the applicable valuation rules. The penalty issue was treated as debatable, so no penalty was imposed. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53831 Inputs cleared to a 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate could not claim exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. because the exemption required direct receipt of excisable goods from the factory of manufacture, and the goods had been purchased from the market after credit was taken. On removal of inputs as such, duty was not confined to the credit originally taken; under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, liability is the duty leviable on the date of removal, computed with reference to the applicable valuation rules. The penalty issue was treated as debatable, so no penalty was imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53831