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 the assessee was entitled to avail the benefit of the amended transitional credit provision under Rule 9A for goods falling under Chapter 62, and whether the declaration filed in June 2003 could validly support the credit claim.
Analysis: Rule 9A originally granted transitional Cenvat credit on inputs in stock or contained in finished products as on 31 March 2003. By later notification, the class of goods eligible for the benefit was enlarged by substitution to cover goods under Chapter 50 to 63, while the operative stock date remained unchanged. The amendment was introduced by way of substitution and therefore took effect retrospectively in the absence of a contrary context. The later notification extending the time for filing declaration up to 15 June 2003 showed that the declaration requirement had to be read with the enlarged benefit. The departmental view would have defeated the amendment itself. The cited authorities on strict compliance did not alter the result because the declaration was in fact filed within the extended time and was not the subject of any independent dispute on deficiency.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the amended benefit, and denial of credit on the ground of non-retrospectivity or late declaration was unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
