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 inputs removed from the factory under Rule 57F(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were liable to duty at the rate prevalent on the date of removal or at the rate on which credit had originally been taken under Rule 57A.
Analysis: Rule 57F(1)(ii) permits removal of duty-paid inputs for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty of excise, treating such inputs as if manufactured in the same factory. The proviso ensures that the duty paid cannot be less than the credit allowed under Rule 57A. The appellants were not manufacturers of the inputs; they had purchased duty-paid inputs on which credit had been taken. In that situation, the fiction of manufacture could not be used to levy a higher rate merely because the date of removal was later. Rule 9A(ii) was also considered, but it did not justify enhancement of duty beyond the duty originally borne by the inputs.
Conclusion: The duty payable on removal of the inputs could not exceed the duty already borne for purposes of Modvat credit, and the demand for the higher rate was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs covered by Modvat credit are removed as such under Rule 57F(1), the applicable duty cannot be raised to a higher rate merely because the removal occurs later; the levy is governed by the duty already paid on the inputs, subject to the minimum of the credit allowed.