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 CENVAT credit was required to be reversed on clearance of waste and rejected noodles arising in manufacture and job work operations. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was attracted.
Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was required to be reversed on clearance of waste and rejected noodles arising in manufacture and job work operations.
Analysis: The clearance in question related to waste, floor sweeping and rejected noodles, not to a deliberate exempted final product manufactured from common inputs. Rule 57D was treated as governing waste, scrap and by-product arising in manufacture, and the Tribunal relied on the settled position that such clearance does not require reversal of credit merely because the waste or by-product is removed. The authorities distinguishing exempted final products from waste and by-products were applied, and the demand based on Rule 57CC or Rule 6 was held inapplicable to the facts.
Conclusion: No reversal of CENVAT credit was required; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was attracted.
Analysis: In view of the nature of the clearances and the legal position that no reversal was payable on such waste removals, the Tribunal held that the ingredients for invoking the extended period were not made out on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not attracted; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand, penalties and interest were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Clearance of waste, scrap or rejected by-product arising in manufacture does not attract reversal of CENVAT credit under the provisions governing exempted final products, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent the requisite factual foundation.
TaxTMI 
