TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court upholds Notification No. 177/86 under Rule 57A, penalties for credit reversal, government's power affirmed</h1> The court upheld the validity of Notification No. 177/86 under Rule 57A, finding it in line with the government's power to restrict credit availability ... Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Penalty - Interpretation of statute Issues:1. Challenge to the legality and validity of Notification No. 177/86 under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Challenge to show cause notice and penalty imposed for reversing Modvat credit.3. Interpretation of Rule 57A regarding the power of the Government to specify inputs for availing credit.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioners challenged the legality of Notification No. 177/86, arguing that it was ultra vires Rule 57A as it restricted the benefit to certain inputs. The petitioners contended that all inputs used in manufacturing final products should be eligible for Modvat credit. The respondents argued that the proviso to Rule 57A allows the Government to specify inputs eligible for credit. The court found that the Notification was not ultra vires as it was in line with Rule 57A, which empowers the Government to restrict credit availability for specified goods or classes of goods.Issue 2:The petitioners also challenged the show cause notice and penalty imposed for reversing Modvat credit. They argued that they had not acted with mala fide intent and had followed the necessary procedures. The court noted that the petitioners had availed Modvat credit on inputs excluded by the Notification, which was contrary to the law. The court upheld the penalty, stating that awareness of the law's provisions justified the penalty imposition.Issue 3:Regarding the interpretation of Rule 57A, the court clarified that the Government has the power to specify final products, duty payable on inputs, and the inputs eligible for credit. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the Government's power under Rule 57A was limited to specifying final products and duty payable on inputs. The court emphasized that clear legal provisions leave little room for interpretation.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the impugned Notification was valid, the penalty was justified, and there was no basis for interference. The court discharged the rule with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
