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: (i) Whether the demand of central excise duty based on alleged excess wastage of crown corks and presumed clandestine clearance of aerated water was sustainable; (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on crown corks that became waste during manufacture.
Issue (i): Whether the demand of central excise duty based on alleged excess wastage of crown corks and presumed clandestine clearance of aerated water was sustainable.
Analysis: The demand rested on comparing actual wastage with an assumed normal wastage percentage and then inferring unaccounted production. The Tribunal applied the principle that such a demand cannot stand unless supported by factual material and proper inquiry showing procurement and use of other inputs, as well as actual clandestine removal. Mere excess wastage figures and non-accountal of crown corks were insufficient to establish suppression or unreported clearance.
Conclusion: The duty demand on the footing of excess wastage and alleged clandestine clearance was not sustainable and was decided against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on crown corks that became waste during manufacture.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied Rule 57D to the nature of the input and held that discrete inputs such as crown corks, when damaged or rendered unfit during manufacture, remain covered by the rule protecting credit on waste arising in the course of manufacture. The fact that the inputs became waste did not justify denial of credit where the waste arose in the manufacturing process itself.
Conclusion: Modvat credit on the waste crown corks could not be denied and the issue was decided against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the department's appeals failed on both the demand for duty and the denial of Modvat credit.
Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand based only on presumed excess wastage or non-accountal of input material is unsustainable without supporting evidence of clandestine manufacture or clearance, and credit cannot be denied on inputs that become waste in the course of manufacture where the governing rule protects such waste.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
