TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 Solvent 75 was a waste or by-product so as to affect eligibility to the benefit of Rule 57M(1). (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are to be read into Rule 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether Solvent 75 was a waste or by-product so as to affect eligibility to the benefit of Rule 57M(1).
Analysis: The product was found to have indeterminate composition, and the characterisation of the product as not being waste or a by-product directly bore upon the assessee's eligibility to the money credit benefit under Rule 57M(1). That issue therefore involved a legal question arising from the finding on the nature of the product.
Conclusion: The issue was held to be referable to the High Court in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are to be read into Rule 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The question concerned the applicability of the statutory time limit to disallowance of money credit under Rule 57P, and the absence of authoritative pronouncement on the point made it a question of law requiring reference.
Conclusion: The issue was held to be referable to the High Court in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The application succeeded to the extent that the identified questions of law were directed to be referred to the High Court for advice.
Ratio Decidendi: A finding that the character of a product affects eligibility to statutory credit, and a question on the reach of a limitation provision into a self-contained credit rule, can give rise to referable questions of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
