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 use of the same inputs in the manufacture of different final products entitled the assessee to maintain a consolidated RG 23 Part II register and utilise Modvat credit for payment of duty, and whether any question of law arose for reference to the High Court.
Analysis: The inputs in question were found to have been used in all the final products manufactured by the assessee. In that situation, the inputs were rightly treated as common inputs, and the mere fact that the final products were different did not disqualify consolidated maintenance of the register or utilisation of credit. The cited decisions on duty-free final products and on inputs not utilised in the relevant output were distinguished on facts, as the present case involved actual use of the same inputs across all declared products. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the controversy did not raise any referable question of law.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee on the merits of common-input utilisation, and the application for reference was rejected because no question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the same inputs are actually used in all the final products, they constitute common inputs for Modvat purposes notwithstanding that the final products are different, and no referable question of law arises on that basis.