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>CESTAT Mumbai Grants Early Hearing on Section 73 Amendment, Clarifies Input Credit Reversal</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed an application for early hearing based on an amendment through Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. The ... Cenvat credit – Held that:- As Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, it has been clarified that, if the assessee is manufacturing both dutiable as well as exempted final products and is not maintaining separate account but at the time of clearance of exempted final products, if the assessee reverse the credit taken on inputs which has gone into the manufacture of the exempted final products, in that case the assessee is not required to reverse 8% or 10% of the amount of the exempted products cleared as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In this case the contention of the appellant is that they have already reversed the input credit along with interest at the time of clearance of their exempted final products, subsequent to the amendment, the adjudicating authority has passed an order dated 13/12/2010 by giving the benefit of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) order has become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal is allowed Issues: Application for early hearing based on amendment through Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010; Interpretation of Section 73 regarding reversal of input credit for exempted final products; Effect of subsequent amendment on previous adjudicating authority's order.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand was an application for early hearing filed by the appellants based on an amendment through Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. The appellants argued that the matter required examination at the end of the adjudicating authority due to this amendment. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the issue was of a narrow compass. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for early hearing and proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal on the same day.Regarding the interpretation of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, the Tribunal clarified that if an assessee is manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products without maintaining separate accounts, but reverses the credit taken on inputs for exempted final products at the time of clearance, the assessee is not required to reverse a certain percentage of the exempted products cleared as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant in this case contended that they had already reversed the input credit along with interest at the time of clearance of their exempted final products. The Tribunal acknowledged this contention and noted that the adjudicating authority had passed an order post the above amendment, granting the benefit of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was deemed infructuous, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.The judgment highlights the significance of statutory amendments in tax matters and the impact of such amendments on ongoing cases. It emphasizes the importance of proper interpretation of statutory provisions in resolving disputes related to tax credits and exemptions. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for clarity and consistency in applying tax laws to ensure fair treatment for taxpayers and uphold the principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
