TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 yarn manufactured and taken for captive use during the currency of the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96W of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be subjected, on clearance of the finished fabrics after withdrawal of the scheme, to the normal rate of duty introduced by Notification No. 168/72-C.E. dated 24-7-1972.
Analysis: The duty liability in respect of the yarn arose under the compounded levy scheme and was tied to the rules and notification governing that scheme when the yarn was manufactured and removed for captive consumption. The scheme operated as a self-contained arrangement, and the ordinary principles of Rules 9 and 9A could not be imported to shift the levy to the date of clearance of fabrics. Once the yarn had been duly removed for use during the subsistence of the scheme, the later withdrawal of the scheme could not retrospectively subject that yarn to the normal spindle-point rate. The date of clearance of fabrics was therefore irrelevant for determining the yarn duty.
Conclusion: The yarn in stock and the yarn contained in fabrics held on the crucial date were not liable to the normal duty rate introduced after withdrawal of the compounded levy scheme. The appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Duty under a compounded levy scheme must be determined with reference to the legal regime prevailing at the time of manufacture and authorised removal for captive use, and cannot be retrospectively altered by a later withdrawal of the scheme or by the date of clearance of the finished goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
