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: (i) Whether a delay of 29 days in filing the matter should be condoned. (ii) Whether the reference on the exemption and Modvat-credit issue should be made to the High Court.
Issue (i): Analysis: The delay was explained as arising from the trifurcation of Collectorates, resulting in dislocation of staff and redistribution of files. In view of the short period of delay and the circumstances shown, the delay was treated as unintentional.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned.
Issue (ii): Analysis: The core controversy concerned whether the assessee could choose either to avail exemption or to pay duty and take Modvat credit. That issue had already been referred to the Delhi High Court, and the additional plea regarding coverage under another notification did not negate the maintainability of the present reference.
Conclusion: The matter was held to lie in reference to the Delhi High Court.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were carried forward by condoning the delay and directing reference of the disputed question to the High Court for decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Short, satisfactorily explained delay occasioned by administrative reorganisation may be condoned, and an issue already fit for reference to the High Court remains referable notwithstanding an additional claim under another exemption notification.