TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether paraldehyde and Solvent-75 were entitled to the benefit of the money credit scheme under Notification No. 231/87. (ii) Whether the demand for reversal of wrong credit was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether paraldehyde and Solvent-75 were entitled to the benefit of the money credit scheme under Notification No. 231/87.
Analysis: The notification granted credit only in respect of specified final products. Paraldehyde was found to be a distinct finished product and not a waste or by-product, but it was not specified in the notification. Solvent-75 was also found to be a new, commercially distinct final product and not a mere by-product, yet it too was not specified. The scheme could not be extended merely because acetaldehyde was an eligible specified product and paraldehyde resulted from further polymerisation of acetaldehyde.
Conclusion: The benefit of the money credit scheme was not available for paraldehyde or Solvent-75, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for reversal of wrong credit was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The demand related to recovery of wrong credit under Rule 57P, which was treated as distinct from recovery of duty under Rule 57I and Rule 9(2). On that basis, no limitation was held applicable to recovery of wrong credit under the relevant rule framework.
Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The order denying the credit benefit and sustaining the demand was upheld, and the appeal failed in full.
Ratio Decidendi: A tax concession under a notification is confined to the goods specifically covered by it, and a demand for recovery of wrong credit under the relevant excise credit provision is not defeated by limitation where the governing framework treats such recovery as distinct from ordinary duty recovery.
TaxTMI 
