TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether ramming mass used in manufacture of pistons was eligible for MODVAT credit and warranted reference in view of divergent tribunal rulings. (ii) Whether filter mesh used in the casting process was eligible for MODVAT credit and warranted reference in view of divergent tribunal rulings. (iii) Whether rejected pistons received for reconditioning and repairs could be treated as inputs for MODVAT credit and, if not declared as inputs, could justify reference.
Issue (i): Whether ramming mass used in manufacture of pistons was eligible for MODVAT credit and warranted reference in view of divergent tribunal rulings.
Analysis: The item was considered in light of the larger Bench view and the conflicting tribunal position on whether it was an input used in or in relation to manufacture or fell within the exclusion for machinery, equipment or apparatus. Since the issue had already attracted a contrary larger Bench ruling, an authoritative opinion from the High Court was considered appropriate.
Conclusion: The question on ramming mass was allowed to be referred to the High Court.
Issue (ii): Whether filter mesh used in the casting process was eligible for MODVAT credit and warranted reference in view of divergent tribunal rulings.
Analysis: The filter mesh was described as being used to remove impurities during casting, with competing tribunal views on similar filtering materials. In view of the divergence and the need for an authoritative ruling, the matter was treated as fit for reference.
Conclusion: The question on filter mesh was allowed to be referred to the High Court.
Issue (iii): Whether rejected pistons received for reconditioning and repairs could be treated as inputs for MODVAT credit and, if not declared as inputs, could justify reference.
Analysis: The rejected pistons had been received only for reconditioning and repairs and were not declared as inputs for manufacture. On that basis, the requirements for MODVAT credit were not satisfied and no reference question arose.
Conclusion: The question on rejected pistons was not allowed to be referred.
Final Conclusion: The reference applications succeeded only in respect of ramming mass and filter mesh, while the request relating to rejected pistons was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: MODVAT reference on an item will be entertained where the issue turns on conflicting authority and the item is claimed as an input used in or in relation to manufacture, but credit cannot be claimed on goods received merely for reconditioning and repairs without compliance with the declaration requirement for inputs.
TaxTMI 
