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: Whether entitlement to Modvat credit by itself bars invocation of the extended period of limitation for suppression under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The Court held that the earlier decision relied upon could not be read as laying down a general rule that availability of Modvat credit automatically negatives suppression or excludes the extended limitation period. The observations in that decision had to be confined to its own facts. Availability of Modvat credit is only one relevant circumstance and its significance depends on the facts of each case. The Tribunal had examined only the existence of Modvat credit and had not considered any other relevant circumstance bearing on suppression and limitation.
Conclusion: Availability of Modvat credit, by itself, does not preclude invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Entitlement to Modvat credit is only a relevant factor and does not, by itself, rule out suppression of facts or the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the question must be decided on the facts of each case.
TaxTMI 
