TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was available to bars and rods manufactured from old and used railway materials; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked.
Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was available to bars and rods manufactured from old and used railway materials.
Analysis: The relevant exemption was not available where the inputs were old and unserviceable re-rollable scrap and not the specified eligible inputs. The case law relied upon for the same product and material situation was followed.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked.
Analysis: The departmental practice and the Board's circulars had created a bona fide belief that such used railway materials were treated as eligible inputs, and on that basis the extended period was held to be unavailable. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on merits, but the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended limitation period, so the duty demand was set aside on limitation grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental practice and circulars justify a bona fide belief regarding exemption eligibility, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A cannot be invoked.
TaxTMI 
