TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds decision on concessional duty rates for manufacturing brass slaps</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I Versus BRALCO METAL IND. PVT. LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I Versus BRALCO METAL IND. PVT. LTD. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 383 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Interpretation of notifications for concessional rate of duty on manufactured products.2. Eligibility for Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing.Analysis:1. The appeals involved a common issue regarding the manufacture of brass slaps using zinc and whether the subsequent manufacture of strips/foils qualified for concessional duty rates under specific notifications. The department contended that using zinc in manufacturing rendered the assessee ineligible for the concessional duty rates. The Assistant Collector upheld the department's demand, but the Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the orders. The Revenue argued that exemptions under the notifications applied only to products manufactured solely from specified materials like old scrap copper. However, the respondent relied on a Tribunal decision and contended that the issue had been settled in previous cases. Citing a precedent involving copper rods, the Tribunal found that the products in question were entitled to the benefits of the notifications, similar to the earlier case. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the department's appeals were dismissed.2. In one of the appeals, a secondary issue arose concerning Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing. The party claimed they had not availed Modvat credit, while the department asserted otherwise based on the Assistant Collector's findings. Due to conflicting views on this matter, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a determination on whether the party had indeed availed Modvat credit. The Tribunal clarified that the products were exempted under the notifications, but the Modvat credit issue required further consideration. As a result, the appeal was allowed for remand, directing a review specifically on the Modvat credit aspect. Ultimately, all three appeals were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 