Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Amendments to Rule 57S render Modvat credit inapplicable, Tribunal upholds Revenue's appeal</h1> <h3>CCE, Jaipur-I Versus M/s Mangla Ispal (Jaipur) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal held that the amendments to Rule 57S rendered Modvat credit inapplicable, leading to the lapse of credit in the respondent's capital goods ... Principle of res-judicata - lapsing of credit lying unutilized on 16/3/1995 with a manufacturer of tractors falling under Heading No. 87.01 or Motor Vehicles falling under Heading 87.02 and 87.04 or chassis of such tractors or such motor vehicles under Heading 87.06 - Held that:- Apex court in the Eicher Motors case [1999 (1) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] had neither dealt with the compound levy scheme formulated under Section 3A nor has it been held that the Rules or Notifications framed under Section 3A were ultravires. The above discussions bring us to the conclusion that the principle of res-judicata cannot be used to apply the Eicher Motors case to the present facts. A straight forward reading of the Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-CE (NT) both dated 01/8/1997 and application of the same would result in the Cenvat credit available in the capital goods account of the respondent on 31/7/1997 to lapse. We also note this Tribunal is a creation of the statute and its mandate is to decide disputes arising in the implementation of the statute within its preview. This Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself any of the extra ordinary powers bestowed upon the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court by the constitution. Consequently we cannot apply the findings of the Apex court in the Eicher case to the present case under the principle of res-judicata. - Decided in favor of revenue. Issues:1. Validity of the amendment to Rule 57S regarding lapsing of Modvat credit.2. Interpretation of directions given by the High Court in a previous case.3. Application of the Eicher Motors case to the present scenario.4. Consideration of Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-CE (NT).5. Principle of res-judicata in the context of the Eicher Motors case.Issue 1: Validity of the amendment to Rule 57SThe appeal concerns the challenge against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the allowance of credit in the respondent's capital goods account, which would otherwise lapse as per Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-CE (NT) dated 01/8/1997. The Revenue argues that the Commissioner erred in applying the Eicher Motors case incorrectly, as it did not address the validity of the mentioned notifications. The Revenue contends that the duty was to be paid in cash post-amendment, making Modvat inapplicable to the Assessee.Issue 2: Interpretation of High Court directionsThe High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to reevaluate the excise duty liability in light of the Eicher Motors case. The Assistant Commissioner's subsequent order allowed the credit, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenges this decision, emphasizing that the High Court's directions should be the guiding principle, and any contrary view would go against the court's directives.Issue 3: Application of Eicher Motors caseThe Eicher Motors case dealt with a different scenario where credit on inputs already used in final products before an amendment was allowed. In contrast, the present case involves capital goods available post-amendment for future use, where Cenvat credit was not permissible. The Tribunal noted the distinctions and emphasized that the Eicher Motors case did not address the compound levy scheme under Section 3A or the validity of the rules and notifications under it.Issue 4: Consideration of Notifications 33/1997 and 34/1997-CE (NT)The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and concluded that the credit in the respondent's capital goods account would lapse as per the notifications on 01/8/1997. The Tribunal highlighted that the notifications were clear on the lapsing of credit and that the Eicher Motors case did not impact the validity or applicability of these notifications.Issue 5: Principle of res-judicataThe Tribunal clarified that the principle of res-judicata could not be applied to equate the Eicher Motors case with the present circumstances. It emphasized the Tribunal's role in deciding disputes within statutory parameters and underscored the need to adhere to the notifications' provisions, leading to the lapse of credit in the respondent's account. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found