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 Soap Manufacturer's Credit Rights Under Notification 192/87</h1> <h3>KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD. Versus COLLR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a soap and detergent manufacturer, in a case concerning the utilization of credit earned under Notification ... Credit of duty Issues:Interpretation of Notification 192/87 and Notification 39/89 regarding credit on rice bran oil under Rule 57K of Central Excise Act, 1944.Detailed Analysis:The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the Asstt. Collector's order. The appellant, a soap and detergent manufacturer, earned credit under Notification 192/87 on rice bran oil at Rs. 640 per M.T. The Department rejected the appellant's claim that credit earned under Notification 192/87 could not be utilized after Notification 39/89 rescinded the former. The appellant argued that earned credit can be utilized unless expressly prohibited, citing a Gujarat High Court ruling.The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the appellant lawfully earned credit under Notification 192/87. The key issue was whether the credit earned would stand abrogated by the rescinding of Notification 39/89. The Tribunal distinguished between taking credit and utilizing credit, emphasizing that the rescinding notification did not expressly nullify the earned credit. The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court's ruling on Rule 57K and held that the right to utilize earned credit does not end with the rescission of the notification that granted it.The Tribunal further cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that notifications should not retrospectively create new obligations or impair existing rights. It concluded that the appellant's acquired right could not be retrospectively nullified unless expressly provided by law. Relying on the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
