Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 Modvat credit on capital goods was admissible in respect of moulds, dies and fixtures removed on payment of duty and received by the assessee, and whether the invoices were invalid merely because they did not evidence a sale.
Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by an earlier Tribunal decision involving the same kind of supply of moulds and dies for manufacture of automobile components. It was held that Rule 57S(1)(ii) permits removal of capital goods on payment of appropriate duty for home consumption, and that such removal within the country does not require a sale. The Tribunal also held that an invoice under Rule 52A is not confined only to a sale transaction. On that reasoning, and following the earlier decision and the Board's clarification referred to therein, the disallowance of credit could not be sustained.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was held admissible to the assessee, and the objection based on absence of sale in the invoices was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee succeeded in both appeals on the credit eligibility issue.
Ratio Decidendi: Removal of capital goods on payment of duty under the Modvat scheme qualifies as removal for home consumption even without a sale, and credit cannot be denied merely because the supporting invoice does not record a sale.