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 the amended explanation to Notification No. 201/79-C.E. displaced the assessee's entitlement to utilise credit already taken on inputs whose tariff classification changed, and whether the amended explanation operated so as to require reversal of such credit.
Analysis: The notification granted a set-off by way of exemption for excisable goods manufactured from specified inputs, and the added explanation was directed to a distinct situation where, because of an amendment to the First Schedule, the tariff item of the raw material changed and the goods and inputs thereafter fell under the same item for the purposes of Rule 56A. That explanation was meant to extend eligibility in the specified circumstance and did not govern the present case, where the assessee had already taken the benefit under the notification in respect of the same inputs and outputs before the amendment. The amended explanation did not take away the benefit already accrued on stocks lying with the assessee on the date of amendment.
Conclusion: The assessee was not required to reverse the credit or repay the amount utilised, and the amended explanation did not apply to deny the existing benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: An amended explanation to an exemption notification will not be construed to retrospectively withdraw a benefit already validly availed of, unless it clearly covers the assessee's situation and expressly displaces the accrued entitlement.