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 demand of duty and denial of credit under Rule 57T(13) of the Central Excise Rules were sustainable without considering the proviso requiring satisfaction that duty had been paid on the capital goods and that such goods had actually been used or were intended to be used in the manufacture of final products.
Analysis: The order rejecting the benefit of credit proceeded on the footing that the invoices did not contain the description of the goods and therefore the requirement under Rule 57T(13) was not met. The proviso to the sub-rule, however, required the adjudicating authority to satisfy itself that duty on the capital goods had been paid and that the capital goods had actually been used or were to be used in the manufacture of final products, and to record reasons for not denying credit. That proviso had not been considered while confirming the demand. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the original authority after examining the satisfaction of the conditions in the proviso and after observing natural justice.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the proviso to Rule 57T(13), and the appellant was to receive the benefit if the stipulated conditions were found satisfied.