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>CEGAT Grants Stay & Duty Waiver on Modvat Credit Denial for HSD Oil</h1> <h3>SHREE RAJ TEXCHEM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR</h3> SHREE RAJ TEXCHEM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 335 (Tribunal) Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on HSD oil used for electricity generation and production of final products based on notification exclusion; retrospective effect of an Explanation added to Rule 57B equating 'inputs' with Rule 57A; conflicting Tribunal judgments on Modvat eligibility for oil used in manufacturing processes.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two stay applications by different assessees regarding the denial of Modvat credit on HSD oil used for electricity generation and production of final products. The Commissioner, relying on a Tribunal judgment and an Explanation added to Rule 57B, held that the oil was excluded from availing credit. The Tribunal had previously rejected similar claims, stating that electricity generation was not part of the manufacturing setup for ferro alloys. However, another Tribunal judgment supported Modvat eligibility for oil used in manufacturing cement, creating a conflict in decisions (paragraphs 2-6).The ld. DR referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that an Explanation clarifies the main provision and becomes part of the enactment, potentially affecting its retrospective application. The Court clarified that if an Explanation excludes something from the main provision, its retrospective effect could deprive an assessee of the provision's benefit. As the conflicting Tribunal judgments did not address this specific issue, the retrospective impact of the Explanation needed further examination by a double Member Bench (paragraphs 4, 6-7).The presiding Member directed the case to be listed before an appropriate Bench for final hearing due to the recurring nature of the issue. Granting unconditional stay and duty waiver for the assessees, the Member highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of the matter. The main appeals were scheduled for hearing before the appropriate Bench in December 1998, indicating a proactive approach to address the conflicting interpretations and ensure consistent application of Modvat credit rules (paragraph 8).
TaxTMI 