TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellate order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on the ground of non-application of mind and application of an inapplicable credit rule to a dispute relating to the 1989 period.
Analysis: The appeal arose from a dispute on reversal of Modvat credit relating to inputs and finished goods present in stock when the assessee switched to an exemption scheme. The lower appellate authority had relied on a Supreme Court decision in a manner that led to the inference that the assessee had not chosen to use the raw material in the final product, which was treated as an erroneous appreciation of the record. It was also found that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 had been applied to a period dating back to 1-10-1989, which was inappropriate for the controversy. These errors justified interference with the appellate order and a fresh decision by the lower appellate authority after hearing the assessee.
Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.
TaxTMI 
