Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
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

        -

        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>Tribunal allows appeal, rejects department demand. Procedural option, compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules emphasized.</h1> <h3>JSW Steel Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem</h3> JSW Steel Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem - TMI Issues Involved:1. Irregular availing of CENVAT credit on inputs and input services.2. Non-maintenance of separate accounts for common inputs/input services.3. Applicability of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.4. Reversal of proportionate credit.5. Limitation and invocation of extended period for issuing show cause notice.Detailed Analysis:1. Irregular Availing of CENVAT Credit:The appellants were engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products and were registered with the Central Excise department. The Preventive Unit officers discovered that the appellants were irregularly availing CENVAT credit on inputs such as lubricants, welding electrodes, and metal cutting gas, and on input services like Manpower Recruitment, Maintenance and Repair, Material Handling, and Business Auxiliary Services. These inputs and services were used for both dutiable and exempted goods without maintaining separate accounts.2. Non-Maintenance of Separate Accounts:The appellants did not maintain separate accounts for common inputs/input services as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department contended that the appellants had not exercised the option to pay proportionate credit on inputs/input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods, making them liable to pay an amount equivalent to 10% or 5% of the value of the exempted product, metallurgical coke.3. Applicability of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The department's view was that the appellants were liable to pay the specified percentage on the value of exempted goods due to their failure to maintain separate accounts or properly exercise the option to reverse proportionate credit. The appellants argued that they had reversed the proportionate credit attributable to exempted products, as evidenced by letters dated 20.07.2009 and 26.12.2011, which informed the department of their reversal of credit on inputs/input services attributable to exempted goods.4. Reversal of Proportionate Credit:The appellants argued that their letters to the department constituted sufficient intimation of their option to reverse proportionate credit under clause (ii) of Rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They cited the Tribunal’s decision in Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. vs. CCE Pune, which held that the delay in intimation could be considered a procedural lapse and not a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the main objective of Rule 6 is to ensure that CENVAT credit is not availed for inputs/input services used in exempted goods.5. Limitation and Invocation of Extended Period:The appellants contended that the show cause notice issued on 22.05.2013 was time-barred, as they had already informed the department of the reversal of credit in 2009 and 2011. The Tribunal found that the department's allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty/tax was unjustified, as the appellants had provided sufficient intimation regarding their credit reversal.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by the department could not be sustained on merits or on the grounds of limitation. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement to exercise the option for reversing proportionate credit is procedural and not mandatory, and the appellants had sufficiently complied with the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found