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 Tribunal's decision on Central Excise Act classification, Modvat credit, abatements</h1> The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, affirming the classification of ... Whether respondent is entitled to abatement in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that one cannot go by general implication that wholesale price would always mean cum duty price particularly when the assessee had cleared the goods on the basis of exemption notification – Held that:- Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act which was obtained during the relevant periodWhether remanding of the case by the CESTAT to the adjudicating authority for the consideration of modvat benefit is correct when Modvat credit has already been allowed in Order-in-Original by the adjudicating authority on the basis of available records, after verification – Held that:- remittal order is put in issue on the ground that it has been already considered and denied when the entire entitlement of the modvat benefit was originally considered. The only issue for which the matter had been remitted back to the original authority is whether the assessee is entitled to modvat credit, even that order of remittal has been granted by imposing a condition that the assessee should establish the claim by producing the documents showing payment of duty on the related inputs, remittal order is not in any way prejudicial to the interest or the Revenue to adjudicate the matter on appeal under Section 35(q) of Central Excise Act which requires question of law much less substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal, Appeal is dismissed Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding abatement entitlement.2. Correctness of remanding the case for considering Modvat benefit after a clear finding in the Order-in-Original.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise ActThe case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the assessee under specific sub-headings. The Original authority had initially demanded duty and imposed penalties, which were subsequently modified by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The CESTAT upheld the classification of cotton core yarn under Chapter Sub-Heading 5205.11 and vacated the penalty under Rule 173Q. The Tribunal also determined that the assessee was eligible for Modvat credit and abatements under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the original authority to consider the benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) based on the available materials. The appellant challenged this remittal order, arguing that the matter had already been considered and denied. However, the Court found that the remittal order was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and did not involve any substantial question of law for appeal under Section 35(q) of the Central Excise Act.Issue 2: Correctness of remanding for Modvat benefit considerationThe Tribunal's decision to remand the case for reconsideration of the Modvat benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) was based on the assessee's entitlement during the relevant period. The Tribunal held that the assessee could establish their claim with documents showing payment of duty on related inputs. The appellant contended that the remittal order was unnecessary as the modvat benefit entitlement had already been considered. However, the Court found that the remittal order did not prejudice the Revenue's interests and did not involve any substantial question of law for appeal under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) interpretation and the correctness of remanding for Modvat benefit consideration. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the remittal order was not prejudicial and did not involve substantial legal questions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
