TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
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 - (New and Powerful) ✕ 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: Whether inputs removed from the factory under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in November 1989 were liable to duty at the rate prevalent on the date of removal or only at the same rate at which Modvat credit had been taken.
Analysis: Under the rule as it stood during the relevant period, inputs on which credit had been taken could be removed for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty of excise as if such inputs had been manufactured in the factory, and the proviso only ensured that the duty paid would not be less than the credit availed. The later insertion of sub-rule (1A) by Notification No. 4/92-C.E. showed a changed position from 1-3-1992. For removals made before that amendment, the applicable duty was the rate in force on the date of actual clearance, not the concessional or credit-linked rate originally applied on receipt of the inputs.
Conclusion: The duty was payable at the rate prevalent on the date of clearance in November 1989, and the Revenue's contention was accepted.
Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside to the extent it had deleted the duty demand, and the original demand of central excise duty was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: For removals of inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) prior to the 1-3-1992 amendment, duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of removal, and not merely at the amount of credit originally availed.
TaxTMI 
