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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether HDPE/PP sacks used for packing cement qualified as inputs for the purposes of MODVAT credit, and whether the contrary show-cause notices and adjudication orders could survive after the Tribunal had already held the issue in the assessee's favour.
Analysis: The relevant scheme allowed credit in respect of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The assessee had availed credit on HDPE/PP sacks used for packing cement. The earlier Tribunal order had held that such sacks were inputs within Rule 57A and that the declaration had been accepted. That order had not been challenged by the Department and had attained finality. Once the issue stood finally concluded in favour of the assessee, the authorities could not reopen the matter by issuing contrary notices or by passing orders inconsistent with that determination.
Conclusion: The sacks were treated as inputs for MODVAT purposes, and the contrary orders were unsustainable. The conclusion was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent appellate authority has finally held that a product qualifies as an input used in or in relation to manufacture, the department cannot issue contrary notices or pass inconsistent orders on the same issue.