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 the buyer of iron and steel inputs was entitled to deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97 where the supplier had discharged duty under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, but there was a dispute as to the quantum of duty paid.
Analysis: The notification required only that the inputs be purchased directly from a manufacturer who had discharged duty under Section 3A and that the invoice contain the requisite declaration of duty payment. The entitlement to deemed credit was at a flat rate of 12% of the value of the inputs and did not depend on the exact correctness of the duty actually paid by the supplier. Once duty payment under Section 3A was , the buyer could not be denied credit merely because Revenue disputed the supplier's duty liability. The issue was covered by the binding High Court ruling and consistent Tribunal decisions.
Conclusion: The denial of deemed Modvat credit was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification grants deemed credit on proof that the supplier has discharged duty under a compounded levy scheme, the purchaser cannot be denied such credit merely because the quantum of duty paid by the supplier is disputed by Revenue.