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 on the disputed inputs could be denied merely because the assessee invoked Rule 57H despite having made an earlier declaration, and whether the substantive benefit had to be preserved subject to verification of receipt and utilisation of the inputs.
Analysis: The declaration of inputs had been made well before the controversy, and the entitlement to Modvat credit had already arisen. Although the assessee adopted an incorrect procedural route under Rule 57H, the substance of the claim could not be ignored. The ruling relied on the principle that admissible credit, once otherwise established, cannot be defeated by procedural inadequacies. At the same time, the department was entitled to examine whether the inputs were physically received and used, as such factual verification could be undertaken from records and registers.
Conclusion: The denial of credit solely on the procedural defect was unsustainable, and the matter required reconsideration by the jurisdictional authority after verification of the records relating to receipt and utilisation of the inputs.
Ratio Decidendi: A substantive excise credit benefit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse where the underlying entitlement has already accrued, though the department may verify the factual receipt and utilisation of the inputs before granting relief.