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 assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE despite having availed Modvat credit on inputs and later reversed it, and whether the exemption notification could override the mandatory bar contained in Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The exemption notification had to be read subject to the statutory scheme governing Modvat credit. Rule 57C expressly prohibited credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of final products exempt from duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Court held that the notification could not be construed so as to render Rule 57C redundant. On the facts, the assessee had availed credit at the time of clearance and reversed it only later in order to claim exemption, and that course did not satisfy the conditions for exemption. The earlier view in Orissa Extrusions was held not to lay down the correct law in the light of the three-Judge Bench decision in Ichalkaranji Machine Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption or refund claimed, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification under the Central Excise law cannot be interpreted so as to defeat the mandatory prohibition against input credit under Rule 57C, and a manufacturer who has availed Modvat credit for exempt or nil-rated clearances cannot claim the exemption by later reversing the credit.