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 Modvat credit could be claimed in 1998, by way of a subsequent declaration, in respect of saleable soft and hard waste lying in stock as on 1-3-1994, and whether such claim was governed by the provisions of Rule 57H as they stood on the date of the later declaration.
Analysis: The earlier declaration dated 5-5-1994 had already been adjudicated and allowed, and the later declaration filed on 27-3-1998 was not a continuation of that earlier claim. The relevant date for examining admissibility was therefore the date of the later declaration. On that footing, the claim had to satisfy the amended transitional-credit conditions in Rule 57H as in force from 1-3-1997, and the supporting duty documents also attracted the limitation in Rule 57G(5). The Court further held that a claim raised after about four years, for a stock position long past, could not be accepted as a matter of course for transitional credit, since the authorities must be able to verify the stock position on the relevant date within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: The subsequent claim for transitional Modvat credit was not admissible, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A later declaration for transitional Modvat credit, filed after the earlier declaration has already been adjudicated, is a fresh claim governed by the rule position then in force, and such credit cannot be allowed after an inordinate and unexplained delay that frustrates verification of the relevant stock position.