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 MODVAT credit was admissible on duty paid intermediate product, namely nylon filament yarn, when that intermediate product was not a specified or notified input under the relevant notification issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The applicable MODVAT scheme was confined to goods notified under Rule 57A. Rule 57D(2) and its proviso were read together with Rules 57A and 57C to hold that the benefit in relation to intermediate products was available only within the statutory framework of notified inputs and the conditions attached to the proviso. The intermediate product in question, though duty paid and used in the manufacture of the final product, was not a notified input. The earlier ruling in Vam Organic Chemicals was distinguished because the proviso to Rule 57D(2) had not then been in force, and the reference in Polychem Ltd. was found inapposite.
Conclusion: MODVAT credit was not admissible on the duty suffered by the intermediate product. The claim was rejected and the answer was against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not permit credit on an intermediate product merely because duty had been paid on it when that product was not within the notified inputs under Rule 57A.
Ratio Decidendi: MODVAT credit can be claimed only in accordance with the notified inputs and the express conditions of the governing rules, and duty paid on a non-notified intermediate product does not by itself create entitlement to credit.