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 rectifies denial of Modvat credit due to acknowledgment discrepancy</h1> <h3>KUMAR POWER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Tribunal rectified an error in denying Modvat credit for inputs received on 1-4-1986 due to an acknowledgment discrepancy. The impugned order was ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake application seeking Modvat credit denial before 2-4-1986, acknowledgment discrepancy, Board's circular clarification, error apparent on record, rectification of impugned order, dismissal of reference application.Analysis:The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous application seeking the release of attached goods, which was dismissed as the ROM application was being disposed of the same day. The ROM application (No. 750/90) aimed to rectify an error in the Tribunal's order dated 6-10-1987 (Order No. 725/87). The petitioner contended that Modvat credit was denied for inputs received on 1-4-1986 due to an acknowledgment discrepancy. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had filed a declaration on 31-3-1986, acknowledged by the Range Superintendent, but received by the Assistant Collector on 2-4-1986. The Board's circular clarified that Modvat credit should be allowed from the date of filing the declaration. The Tribunal acknowledged an error in not considering the declaration and Board's communication, rectifying the impugned order to grant Modvat credit for inputs received on 1-4-1986.The Tribunal noted that the Modvat Scheme was evolving, and a liberal approach was favored in its application. The failure to consider the declaration and Board's communication, along with the Duty SDR not highlighting this evidence during the initial decision, constituted an error apparent on record. Consequently, the Tribunal rectified the impugned order to allow Modvat credit for inputs received on 1-4-1986. The Reference Application related to the same mistake was dismissed as it could not coexist with the rectification application. The rectification of the impugned order was deemed sufficient to address the error in denying Modvat credit before 2-4-1986, ensuring justice was served in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
