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: (i) whether Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of carbon black cleared without payment of duty under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied as if the clearances were exempted; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
Issue (i): whether Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of carbon black cleared without payment of duty under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied as if the clearances were exempted.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that removals made without payment of duty under the special export-linked scheme were not to be equated with clearances attracting nil rate of duty or full exemption. It relied on the earlier view that Rule 57C does not apply where the final product is cleared under the special procedural route and on the holding of the Supreme Court that clearances under Rule 13 are not duty-exempt clearances. On that reasoning, the denial of Modvat credit on the inputs used for carbon black was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee; Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground.
Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware of the availment of credit and that there had been continuous correspondence regarding the disputed credit from an early stage. In the absence of fraud, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, collusion, or contravention with intent to evade duty, the statutory conditions for the longer limitation period were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified and this issue is also answered in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand, penalty, and related confirmation were set aside because the credit was held admissible and the extended limitation period could not be applied.
Ratio Decidendi: Clearances made under a special duty-free procedure are not to be treated as exempt clearances for denying Modvat credit, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent fraud, suppression, wilful mis-statement, or intent to evade duty.
TaxTMI 
