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: Whether the assessee had actually received Ketonic Resin inputs in its factory and was therefore entitled to Modvat credit, and whether the demand and penalties based on alleged non-receipt of inputs were sustainable.
Analysis: The record showed that the disputed invoice-covered quantities were entered in the RG 23 Part I & II, supported by Kardex entries, stock records, affidavits of the supplier and the stores in charge, and evidence of subsequent delivery and use in manufacture. The earlier finding that the input could be used in the manufacture of disperse dyes had attained finality, and the appellate authority had not properly appreciated the material showing actual receipt and consumption. Mere discrepancies regarding vehicle numbers, without displacing the documentary and testimonial evidence of receipt, were insufficient to sustain denial of credit.
Conclusion: The assessee had established actual receipt and consumption of Ketonic Resin in the factory, so the denial of credit was unsustainable. The demand for reversal of credit and the consequential penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned order was set aside to the extent it upheld reversal of credit and penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied where actual receipt and use of inputs are proved by consistent contemporaneous records and corroborative evidence, and speculative discrepancies not displacing that evidence are insufficient to uphold duty demand or penalties.
TaxTMI 
