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 Modvat credit could be denied to the appellant on the ground that the input invoices stood in the names of loan-licensees and the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the appellant's contention that the inputs were used by those loan-licensees in manufacture.
Analysis: The order under challenge did not examine the specific remand issue and gave no clear reasoning for rejecting the appellant's case. In excise law, more than one manufacturer may operate in the same factory, and a loan-licensee manufacturing goods therein may utilise Modvat credit for duty on goods manufactured by it. The appellant's contention that it was not the manufacturer was not rebutted by any material from the department, and the invoices being in the names of the loan-licensees did not by itself establish misuse of the scheme against the appellant.
Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, leaving liberty to proceed against the person, if any, who had actually utilised the credit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the department does not rebut the assessee's contention that another registered manufacturer or loan-licensee used the inputs in manufacture, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the invoices stand in another's name.