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 transferee of an advance licence could claim exemption under Notification No. 204/92 when the export goods were manufactured by availing Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules and the credit was reversed later.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 204/92 was subject to the condition that where export goods were manufactured by availing credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the benefit of sale or transfer of materials or the licence would not be available. The fact that the licensing authority endorsed transferability did not conclude the question of exemption under the customs notification. The Customs authorities were entitled to test whether the conditions of the notification were satisfied. Reversal of Modvat credit after shipment did not undo the earlier breach of the exemption condition. The transferee could not claim a better benefit than the original licensee, and the notification had to be read as a whole, not by isolating the transferability clause from the exclusionary condition.
Conclusion: The exemption claim was not available to the transferee, and the departmental appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification makes non-availment of Modvat credit a substantive condition, a later reversal of the credit does not cure the breach, and a transferee of the licence cannot obtain exemption if the original licensee was disentitled under the notification.