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 Rules Against Appellant: No Benefit Under Notification 67/95CE, Rejects Revenue Neutrality Argument on CENVAT Credit</h1> <h3>M/s Precision Moulds and Dies Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Meerut</h3> M/s Precision Moulds and Dies Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Meerut - 2025:AHC:26925 - DB 1. Issues Presented and Considered:The core legal questions considered in this case include whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on goods transferred for job work, and whether the concept of revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit could exempt the appellant from paying duty.2. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Benefit of Notification No. 67/95CE- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant claimed entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95CE dated 16.03.1995, which was a key legal provision in question.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the notification applied only to goods produced and used within the factory, not to goods sent out for job work. Thus, the notification was deemed inapplicable in this case.- Key evidence and findings: The goods in question were cleared without duty payment for job work but were later returned to the appellant's factory. However, the Tribunal concluded that the goods could have become finished goods, making the notification inapplicable.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal's interpretation was based on the specific language and scope of the notification, which did not extend to goods sent out for job work.- Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for the benefit of the notification, upholding the lower authorities' decisions.Issue 2: Revenue Neutrality and CENVAT Credit- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The concept of revenue neutrality and the utilization of CENVAT Credit were central to this issue.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that allowing the appellant to avoid duty payment based on CENVAT Credit would undermine the purpose of the credit scheme, as it could lead to widespread non-payment of duties.- Key evidence and findings: The appellant argued that paying duty would not impact its finances due to the availability of CENVAT Credit. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument to maintain the integrity of duty payment requirements.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to duty payment obligations regardless of potential credit availability to prevent abuse of the system.- Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's plea for revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit, affirming the necessity of duty payment at the time of goods clearance.3. Significant Holdings:- The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the need to uphold duty payment requirements to prevent abuse of the system.- The core principle established was that specific notifications and credit schemes should not be used to circumvent duty payment obligations.- Final determinations on each issue favored the revenue authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.
TaxTMI 