TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether CENVAT credit of additional customs duty paid on re-imported transformers was admissible when some damaged parts were repaired or replaced before clearance of the repaired transformers; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): whether CENVAT credit of additional customs duty paid on re-imported transformers was admissible when some damaged parts were repaired or replaced before clearance of the repaired transformers.
Analysis: The transformers were re-imported as complete goods on payment of customs duty and CVD on the full value, including the damaged parts. The credit was taken only of the duty actually paid on the imported complete transformers. The subsequent repair or replacement of damaged parts did not alter the fact that duty had been discharged on the imported goods as such. On that basis, the denial of credit was not justified. Rule 3(1)(vi) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 entitled credit of the additional duty of customs paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also found inapplicable on the facts, as the goods had been exported for testing and re-imported on payment of duty.
Conclusion: The credit was admissible and the disallowance was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The credit had been availed in September 2003, whereas the relevant show cause notice was issued only on 22 March 2007. On this chronology, the demand was beyond the permissible period.
Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has been paid on re-imported goods as complete goods, credit cannot be denied merely because some damaged components were repaired or replaced before final clearance, and a demand raised beyond the applicable limitation period cannot survive.
TaxTMI 
