TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Modvat Credit Decision, Rejects Revenue's Appeal</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I Versus BPL ENGINEERING LTD.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow Modvat credit on capital goods received before a specific date, citing relevant case laws and ... Appeal - Cenvat/Modvat Issues involved:1. Eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods received before a specific date.2. Request for adjournment by the Respondents.3. Appeal by Revenue regarding a previous order.4. Pendency of Reference Application before the High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods received before a specific date. The case involved a dispute where the Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal allowing Modvat credit on certain items. The Tribunal referred the case back for re-examination of the cut-off date for availing Modvat credit. The Commissioner passed an Order-in-Appeal upholding the Modvat credit based on specific provisions in Notification No. 11/95-C.E. and previous Tribunal rulings. The judgment cited relevant case laws such as M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and M/s. Lupin Labs Limited to support the decision to allow Modvat credit on the goods received before the specified date.2. The Respondents were not present during the proceedings, and their Counsel requested an adjournment, which was denied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded with the case and made its decision based on the arguments presented by the Revenue and the findings of the Commissioner.3. The Revenue raised an issue regarding a previous Order-in-Appeal, which they had appealed against before the CEGAT. The CEGAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, leading them to file a civil appeal before the High Court. The Revenue requested the Tribunal to keep the matter pending due to a Reference Application filed before the High Court. However, the Tribunal found that the pendency of the Reference was not sufficient grounds to delay the current proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the merits of the case and previous Tribunal rulings.4. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the pendency of the Reference Application before the High Court. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention to keep the matter pending. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner had thoroughly examined the appeal and found the assessee eligible for Modvat credit based on established legal principles and Tribunal judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow Modvat credit on the capital goods in question.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
