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: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation when the show cause notice was issued after the then-applicable limitation period for the month in which Modvat credit was taken; (ii) Whether credit of excess duty paid by debiting RG 23A could be taken suo motu by the assessee with intimation to the Superintendent.
Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation when the show cause notice was issued after the then-applicable limitation period for the month in which Modvat credit was taken.
Analysis: The credit was taken in November 1999, while the show cause notice was issued only on 21.12.2000. On the facts, the relevant limitation applicable at the material time was six months, and the subsequent enhancement of the period did not validate a notice already beyond time for the period in dispute.
Conclusion: The demand was time-barred.
Issue (ii): Whether credit of excess duty paid by debiting RG 23A could be taken suo motu by the assessee with intimation to the Superintendent.
Analysis: Excess duty paid by debit in RG 23A was treated as available for Modvat credit, and the assessee was not required to file a refund claim before availing the credit. The assessee could regularise the credit by simple intimation to the jurisdictional Superintendent.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to take the credit suo motu with intimation.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed together with the stay application.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand for reversal of Modvat credit is unsustainable when the notice is issued beyond the applicable limitation period, and excess duty paid through RG 23A can be taken as credit suo motu with intimation to the jurisdictional officer.
TaxTMI 
