TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court affirms CESTAT decision on concessional duty rates for Ceramic glazed tiles</h1> The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision in a case involving interpretation of Notification No.6/2002CE on concessional duty rates for Ceramic glazed tiles ... - Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are:1. Interpretation of Notification No.6/2002CE dated 01.03.2002 regarding eligibility to claim benefits.2. Acceptance of reversal of CENVAT credit by an assessee after contravention of Act and Rules.3. Entitlement to exemption from paying full duty based on subsequent conduct of the assessee.Interpretation of Notification No.6/2002CE:The case involved manufacturers of Ceramic glazed tiles availing concessional duty rates under Notification No.6/02CE. The department contended that the benefit was conditional on not availing credit of duty paid on inputs. The respondent had already taken such credit, leading to a show cause notice. The Commissioner and CESTAT differed on the admissibility of the exemption, with CESTAT ruling in favor of the manufacturer.Reversal of CENVAT Credit:The department argued that the reversal of CENVAT credit by the respondent, done prior to the show cause notice, did not absolve them of the deliberate act of availing unjustified benefits. However, the Court found no perversity in the CESTAT's decision, stating that no question of law arose in this case.Entitlement to Exemption:The show cause notice raised demands under Sections 11A, 11AB, and 11C of the Central Excise Act, citing the conditional nature of the exemption under the notification. The Court examined Rule 3 and Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the impermissibility of availing the exemption once credit on inputs used in manufacturing was taken. The CESTAT decision, based on a Gujarat High Court judgment, held that reversal of credit, even after clearance, amounted to non-availment of credit.Conclusion:The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, noting that the respondent had reversed the credit before the show cause notice was issued. As the department did not challenge this reversal, the manufacturer was entitled to the benefits of the notification. With no substantial question of law, the appeal of the department was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
