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 emphasizes genuine Modvat credit claim despite depot registration issue</h1> <h3>MYSORE TRADING CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE</h3> MYSORE TRADING CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 68 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:- Modvat credit availed prior to 31-12-1994- Requirement of registration for availing Modvat credit- Duty payment on inputs- Specified inputs and final products under Rule 57AAnalysis:Issue 1: Modvat credit availed prior to 31-12-1994The case involved four different assessees engaged in manufacturing P.C.C. and R.C.C. poles using cement as the main input. The dispute revolved around Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs availed by the appellants from July 1994 to 31-12-1994. The Additional Commissioner allowed the Modvat credit, but the Commissioner(Appeals) disallowed it.Issue 2: Requirement of registration for availing Modvat creditRule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 outlines the procedure for manufacturers to take credit of duty paid on inputs. The Central Government, through notifications, prescribed documents like invoices for availing Modvat credit. Circular No. 76/76/94 clarified that documents, including invoices from a depot, could be accepted only until 31-12-1994. It was highlighted that the manufacturer's depot had not been registered by the specified date.Issue 3: Duty payment on inputsThe pivotal question was whether duty had been paid on the specific input brought into the user's factory and if the input and final product met the criteria under Rule 57A. The Additional Commissioner confirmed that duty had been paid on the received input, supporting the genuineness of the appellants' claim for Modvat credit.Issue 4: Specified inputs and final products under Rule 57AThe judgment emphasized that non-registration of the depot before 31-12-1994 should not impede the availment of Modvat credit as long as the duty had been paid on the input. The focus was on the actual payment of duty and compliance with the specified input and final product criteria, rather than procedural requirements like depot registration.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the applications and appeals, emphasizing the genuineness of the claim for Modvat credit despite the non-registration of the depot before 31-12-1994. The judgment underscored the importance of actual duty payment and compliance with specified input and final product criteria over procedural requirements like depot registration for availing Modvat credit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
