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 on input duty was confined to the net weight actually received in the factory when the shortfall from the invoice weight was attributable to moisture loss during transit.
Analysis: The input was viscose staple fibre, a hygroscopic commodity, and the weight difference was found to arise from loss of moisture during storage or transit. The Tribunal treated the earlier view as applicable where duty had been paid on the quantity invoiced, but the quantity received was lower only because of evaporation of moisture and not because of theft, pilferage, or any deliberate reduction in quantity. In such circumstances, the insistence that credit must be restricted strictly to the net weight received was held to be too rigid, since weight variations caused by absorption or evaporation of moisture are common in such goods and do not affect the revenue in the long run.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was not restricted to the net weight actually received, and the credit on the duty paid quantity was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed because the weight difference caused by moisture loss did not justify denying credit on the duty-paid quantity.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the reduction in weight of an input is attributable to natural moisture loss in a hygroscopic commodity and not to pilferage or other deliberate removal, Modvat credit is available on the duty paid quantity and is not confined to the net weight physically received.