TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Tax Appeal, Considers Manufacturing Loss Tolerance</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus Shah Alloys Ltd.</h3> The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, upholding the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision. The court found that the ... Discrepancies in stock - reversal of CENVAT credit - Substantial discrepancies in the valuation of inputs as per the stock register and the stock physically found - mere manufacturing loss or not - appeal against the judgement passed in the case M/s Shah Alloys Ltd. Versus The Commissioner C&CE, Ahmedabad III [2014 (11) TMI 116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Held that: - the assessee was consuming as many as 42 different inputs. The discrepancies in the stock was found only in five of them. As a whole, the shortfall is only 0.42% of the total consumption of inputs by the assessee. It was in this background that the Tribunal opined that such discrepancy can be put down as manufacturing loss - no reversal of CENVAT credit required - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal- Whether shortfall of raw materials can be attributed to manufacturing loss within tolerance limit- Whether Tribunal correctly considered industry knowledge for determining manufacturing loss tolerance limitAnalysis:1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's judgment, raising questions regarding the attribution of raw material shortfall to manufacturing loss and the entitlement to Cenvat credit.2. The Revenue argued that discrepancies in input valuation could not be considered as mere manufacturing loss.3. The Tribunal's judgment highlighted that out of 42 different inputs, discrepancies were found in only five, amounting to a 0.42% shortfall in total input consumption, leading to the conclusion that the discrepancy could be categorized as manufacturing loss.4. The High Court, after examining the facts, concluded that no question of law arose in this case. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on the negligible shortfall in input consumption and industry knowledge regarding manufacturing loss tolerance limits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
