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: Whether the applicants were entitled to Modvat credit on duty paid at the time of first clearance of aluminium extrusions when the goods were later rejected by customers and returned, and whether the question framed on such entitlement was a fit question of law for reference to the High Court.
Analysis: The returned aluminium extrusions were claimed to have been used as inputs for manufacture of fresh aluminium sections after further processing, while the Department maintained that no new manufacture emerged and that the goods could only be dealt with under the procedures relating to returned goods. The order noted that the Tribunal decisions relied upon by the applicants treated rejected goods returned after clearance as inputs where they ceased to be marketable as final products and were subjected to fresh manufacturing processes, whereas other decisions cited for the Department concerned mere reconditioning and re-clearance. In view of these differing lines of authority, the issue was held to involve a real controversy on a question of law.
Conclusion: The question of law was properly referable, and the applicants succeeded in obtaining reference of the Modvat credit issue to the High Court.