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 the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could interfere with the Settlement Commission's order and remand the matter when the Commission had applied an incorrect legal principle on undisputed facts. (ii) Whether defective float glass, to the extent used in the manufacturing process, could be treated as an inadmissible input for the purpose of Modvat credit.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could interfere with the Settlement Commission's order and remand the matter when the Commission had applied an incorrect legal principle on undisputed facts.
Analysis: The undisputed factual findings recorded by the Settlement Commission were accepted by the High Court and were not disturbed. The High Court interfered only because the Commission treated even the part of the float glass used in manufacture as wasted input and applied the wrong legal principle on the scope of manufacture and the expression used in relation to manufacture. Such correction of an error of law on admitted facts was held to be within the permissible limits of Article 226.
Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to interfere and remand the matter.
Issue (ii): Whether defective float glass, to the extent used in the manufacturing process, could be treated as an inadmissible input for the purpose of Modvat credit.
Analysis: The expression "used in the manufacture" and "used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products" was required to receive a wide construction. The manufacturing process commenced when the raw material was subjected to the series of operations integrally connected with the final product. On that approach, float glass used in the process could not be denied credit merely because a portion of the sheet later turned out to be defective or discarded, so long as it had entered the manufacturing stream as an eligible input.
Conclusion: The view adopted by the Settlement Commission was incorrect and the assessee's entitlement to have the matter reconsidered was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the remand ordered by the High Court stood affirmed, and the Settlement Commission was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court may correct an error of law committed by the Settlement Commission on undisputed facts, and the phrase "used in or in relation to the manufacture" must be construed broadly so that inputs forming part of an integral manufacturing process are not denied Modvat credit on a restrictive view.
TaxTMI 
