Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether credit taken on inputs procured from a 100% EOU was restricted to the additional customs duty element and whether the order dropping the demand was legally sustainable.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the interpretation of the notifications governing credit on inputs supplied by a 100% EOU and the scope of the credit available under the Cenvat/Modvat scheme. The order relied on the Larger Bench view that credit is confined to the additional duty of customs leviable on like imported goods under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and noted that the relevant notification was materially similar to the earlier notification considered by the Larger Bench. The order also relied on departmental circulars and prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case. It further held that new grounds could not be introduced at the appeal stage if they were not part of the show cause notice, and that departmental officers were bound by appellate and Tribunal decisions.
Conclusion: The credit taken by the assessee was held to be in accordance with the applicable notification and the drop-order was upheld; the departmental appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the notification governing credit on inputs from a 100% EOU limits admissible credit to the additional duty of customs leviable on like imported goods, credit beyond that limit is not available, and subordinate authorities must follow binding appellate precedent on the same issue.