TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether defective PET chips and PET lumps generated during manufacture could be treated as part of the total output for satisfying SION norms and whether Note 2 to the SION could be applied to the disputed period. (ii) Whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable when the relevant data stood reflected in ER-2 and ER-5 returns and the dispute was essentially interpretational.
Issue (i): Whether defective PET chips and PET lumps generated during manufacture could be treated as part of the total output for satisfying SION norms and whether Note 2 to the SION could be applied to the disputed period.
Analysis: The defective goods arose in the ordinary course of manufacture and were shown to be cleared on payment of duty, with the quantities reflected in the statutory returns and records. The notification governing EOUs also contemplated clearance of waste and scrap to the domestic market. Note 2 to the SION was found to have been introduced on the basis of technical particulars already furnished and was treated as explanatory of the normal production process rather than as a new norm confined only to future manufacture. The rejection of this material by the adjudicating authority was therefore found erroneous.
Conclusion: The benefit of defective PET quantities and Note 2 to the SION was required to be granted to the Assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable when the relevant data stood reflected in ER-2 and ER-5 returns and the dispute was essentially interpretational.
Analysis: The Assessee was regularly filing statutory returns and the Department relied on those very records for issuing the show cause notices. On those facts, suppression was not made out and the invocation of the extended period could not survive. The demand based on the extended period was therefore unsustainable for both show cause notices.
Conclusion: The extended period demand was set aside in favour of the Assessee.
Final Conclusion: The extended-period demand was annulled, the normal-period demand was sent back for fresh quantification after giving credit for defective production and the SION amendment, and no penalty was to be imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where defective goods arise in the course of manufacture and the relevant quantities are disclosed in statutory returns, they may be considered in production norm compliance, and an extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent suppression of material facts.
TaxTMI 
