TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether unbranded chewing tobacco captively used in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco during the relevant period was liable to duty and, if so, whether Modvat credit of the duty paid was available; (ii) whether penalty was exigible.
Issue (i): Whether unbranded chewing tobacco captively used in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco during the relevant period was liable to duty and, if so, whether Modvat credit of the duty paid was available.
Analysis: Unbranded chewing tobacco had become dutiable from 1-3-1994. The earlier procedural arrangement under Rule 56A was withdrawn on 20-5-1994, and the contemporaneous notification brought chewing tobacco within the Modvat scheme. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had already been decided for other units of the appellants and that the Revenue had not challenged that view. On that basis, duty on the unbranded chewing tobacco for the disputed period was upheld, while credit of the duty so paid was held available in accordance with the Modvat procedure and the relevant notification.
Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained, and the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid, subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty was exigible.
Analysis: The Tribunal found no justification for penalty in the circumstances. The record did not disclose a case warranting penal action, and the absence of wilful default was accepted for this purpose.
Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deletion of penalty, while the duty liability was maintained with corresponding credit entitlement under the Modvat scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is payable on captively consumed excisable goods, corresponding Modvat credit may be availed if the prescribed conditions are satisfied, and penalty is not warranted absent a proper basis for penal inference.
TaxTMI 
