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 Modvat credit under the deemed credit scheme could be denied merely because the invoices did not mention the thickness of steel sheets and because the assessee later incorporated thickness particulars on the documents, and whether such additions by themselves established manipulation or wrongful availment of credit.
Analysis: The deemed credit scheme under the relevant proviso dispensed with proof of duty payment and did not prescribe the exact contents of invoices issued by market dealers. The absence of a thickness entry in the invoice did not, by itself, show that the goods were outside the permitted description. A denial of credit required evidence that the actual goods received were of a thickness exceeding the prescribed limit. The statement of the director did not amount to an admission of manipulation or of receipt of disqualified goods, and the voluntary reversal of credit was treated as not establishing guilt. In the absence of independent evidence from the department that the sheets received were thicker than permitted, the allegation of document manipulation was not proved.
Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit was not justified, and the assessee was entitled to the credit with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the deemed Modvat credit scheme, credit cannot be denied solely because an invoice omits a descriptive particular, unless the department proves by evidence that the goods actually received did not satisfy the prescribed description.