TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 imported furnace oil received in the factory before 27-11-1997 was entitled to full Modvat credit or was restricted to 95% of the additional duty of customs under the notification scheme. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute turned on interpretation of the notification provisions.
Issue (i): Whether imported furnace oil received in the factory before 27-11-1997 was entitled to full Modvat credit or was restricted to 95% of the additional duty of customs under the notification scheme.
Analysis: The notification framework granted Modvat credit generally up to 95% of the duty paid on inputs, while a special proviso imposed a further restriction for specified petroleum products. The exception for direct import for own use applied only to the special restriction on petroleum products and did not exclude such goods from the general 95% limitation. Goods not covered by the special proviso continued to fall under the general restriction.
Conclusion: The credit was correctly restricted to 95% and the assessee was not entitled to full credit.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable where the dispute turned on interpretation of the notification provisions.
Analysis: The dispute involved construction of the applicable notification provisions and the scope of the exception for imported petroleum products. In such a case of interpretational controversy, penal consequence was not justified.
Conclusion: The penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand and credit restriction were sustained, but the penal component was deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a general credit restriction applies under a notification, an exception carved out by a special proviso does not displace the general restriction for goods falling outside that proviso, and penalty is not warranted when the controversy is purely interpretational.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
