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 the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked in a case where the assessee had itself paid duty and taken Modvat credit, and the consequential demand, penalty and interest could be sustained.
Analysis: The assessee manufactured wax paper captively used in the manufacture of blades and had paid duty on the wax paper while also taking Modvat credit. The Tribunal applied the principle of revenue neutrality and held that, where credit is available to the same assessee in relation to the same goods, the necessary element of intention to evade duty is absent. On that basis, the proviso to Section 11A was held inapplicable. The Tribunal also found it unnecessary to examine the merits of valuation once the larger part of the demand was found time-barred.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue; the demand for the period beyond April to August 1998 was barred by limitation, and the penalty and interest were set aside. Only the duty for April to August 1998 remained payable with corresponding credit entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the same assessee is entitled to Modvat credit on the duty paid, the situation is revenue neutral and the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked in the absence of intention to evade duty.