TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects revenue's appeal on RG-1 Register requirement, emphasizes use of available records</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS. (A), AURANGABAD Versus MAHAVEER STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS. (A), AURANGABAD Versus MAHAVEER STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 456 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of small scale Notification No. 16/97-C.E.2. Debiting of credit availed by the appellant.3. Requirement to maintain separate RG-1 Register for manufactured products.4. Comparison of figures in RG-23A or Form-IV records.Analysis:1. The appellant opted for small scale Notification No. 16/97-C.E. and was required to debit an amount of credit availed by them. The appellant debited an amount but was issued a Show Cause Notice for the balance amount. The issue revolved around the interpretation and application of this notification.2. The contention was that part of the final product was manufactured from non-modvatable inputs, which was initially disputed due to the lack of a separate RG-1 Register. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's contention, stating that maintaining a separate RG-1 account was not required by law. The correlation between manufactured products could be established through other records like Form-IV Register and RG-23A Part-1 account.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that adverse conclusions cannot be drawn solely based on the absence of segregation of finished goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of utilizing available records like Form-IV and RG-23A for correlation instead of solely relying on the RG-1 Register for manufactured products.4. The judgment pointed out that the revenue failed to make any effort to rebut the respondent's stand or the findings of the appellant's authority based on the comparison of figures in RG-23A or Form-IV records. Due to the lack of merit in the revenue's appeal, it was rejected by the tribunal.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of the small scale Notification, the necessity of maintaining separate registers, and the importance of utilizing available records for correlation and verification in excise matters.
TaxTMI 