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: Entitlement to Modvat credit on lubricants, ramming mass/Whylheat, chemical bonded compound used for sand mould preparation, and refractory compound used in furnace operations, including whether a declaration filed under the capital goods provision could sustain credit for inputs.
Analysis: The disputed items were examined against the settled Tribunal and High Court precedents relied upon for each category of goods. Lubricants were covered by the Larger Bench view allowing credit; Whylheat, treated as ramming mass, was supported by the Calcutta High Court decision recognizing credit on such material; Evalinocure A/B/C was held eligible as a chemical bonded compound used in preparation of sand mould; and Fosil was covered by the Tribunal decision allowing credit on refractory-based compound used in furnace operations. The declaration issue was also resolved in favour of the assessee by applying the Larger Bench view that a declaration under Rule 57Q could be sufficient where the goods were otherwise inputs entitled to credit.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible on all the disputed items, and the denial of credit was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in full, and the disallowance of Modvat credit was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where disputed goods are shown by binding precedent to function as eligible inputs for manufacture, credit cannot be denied merely because they were also described or declared under the capital goods route, if the substantive conditions for credit are otherwise satisfied.
TaxTMI 
