Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal rules for Appellant, setting aside demands & penalties. Manufacturers entitled to credit, job workers not liable.

        M/s Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd, JM Sanghvi, Ashok J Patel, DN Patel Versus C.C.E. & S.T., -Ahmedabad-iii

        M/s Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd, JM Sanghvi, Ashok J Patel, DN Patel Versus C.C.E. & S.T., -Ahmedabad-iii - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit
        2. Demand of Central Excise Duty
        3. Misuse of Exemption Notifications
        4. Compliance with Job Work Provisions
        5. Validity of Certificates under Exemption Notifications
        6. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Exports
        7. Maintenance of Separate Accounts under Rule 6 of CCR
        8. Time Bar for Demand

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit:
        The Appellant was denied Cenvat credit on raw materials used in various divisions, including SSTP, SP, and Kutch, on grounds that the raw materials were directly sent to job workers without being received by the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal found that the Jamnagar Mobile Plant and Dehgam Mobile Plant were temporary extensions of the main plants and the manufacturing process was disclosed and permitted by the authorities. The Tribunal ruled that the principal manufacturers (SP and SSTP Divisions) rightly availed the Cenvat credit since the job workers were part of the same entity and the raw materials were used for the intended purpose.

        2. Demand of Central Excise Duty:
        The revenue demanded duty from job workers like Jamnagar Mobile Plant and Dehgam Mobile Plant, arguing that they were the actual manufacturers. The Tribunal held that the principal manufacturers (SP and SSTP Divisions) were the rightful entities to clear the goods, as they had the necessary permissions and the goods were cleared to the intended recipients. The Tribunal also noted that the duty demand from job workers was not justified since the goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE.

        3. Misuse of Exemption Notifications:
        The revenue contended that the Appellant misused Notification No. 108/95-CE by not mentioning the job workers in the certificates. The Tribunal referenced the High Court and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the exemption cannot be denied if the goods were used for the intended purpose, regardless of whether the job worker's name appeared on the certificate.

        4. Compliance with Job Work Provisions:
        The revenue argued that the Appellant did not follow the provisions under Notification No. 214/86-CE for job work, thus making the job workers liable for duty. The Tribunal found that the job workers were merely extensions of the principal manufacturers, who had disclosed their procedures and obtained necessary permissions. Therefore, the principal manufacturers were compliant with the job work provisions.

        5. Validity of Certificates under Exemption Notifications:
        The Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was valid even if the job worker's name was not on the certificate, as long as the goods were supplied for the intended project. This was supported by previous judgments, which stated that the exemption should be construed liberally.

        6. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Exports:
        For exported goods, the Tribunal ruled that the Appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit, as the job work was conducted under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, and the goods were exported by the principal manufacturers. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural infractions should not lead to denial of credit if the goods were ultimately exported.

        7. Maintenance of Separate Accounts under Rule 6 of CCR:
        The Appellant reversed 10% of the value of exempted goods instead of maintaining separate accounts for HR Plates. The Tribunal found this acceptable under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, as the Appellant had the option to either maintain separate accounts or reverse the credit.

        8. Time Bar for Demand:
        The Tribunal found that the demands were time-barred, as the issue involved interpretation of job work rules and not intentional evasion of duty. The Appellant had disclosed all facts and followed statutory procedures, making the extended period for demand inapplicable.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties against the Appellant, holding that the principal manufacturers were entitled to Cenvat credit and the job workers were not liable for duty. The Tribunal also ruled that the demands were time-barred and procedural infractions should not lead to denial of benefits. All appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found