2016 (4) TMI 1019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The subject matter in this Writ Petition is related to payment of VAT on the invisible loss of yarn pursuant to manufacturing activity. The said issue has been decided by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13901,30852 to 30880 of 2013 in the case of ?Interfit Techno Products Ltd., Vs. The Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes?, by order dated 26.11.2014. The relevant portion found in the said judgment reads as follows:- "The decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996(88)E.L.T.314(SC)] is an appeal filed challenging the order passed by the CEGAT and the question was whether the appellant was entitled for concessional rate of duty. The exemption no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In the result, 1.the challenge to the impugned order is held to be unnecessary since the circular is a non-statutory circular and is in the nature of guideline and the prayer for quashing the circular is rejected. 2.Section 18 of the TNVAT Act is not an independent or a separate stand alone provision under the provisions of TNVAT Act but subject to other provisions of the Act including Section 19 of the VAT Act. 3.For the reasons assigned, it is not sufficient for a dealer claiming refund under Section 18(2) of the Act to show that he has paid Input Tax on the goods purchased; that those goods are used in the manufacture and nothing more but there is duty upon the dealer to satisfy the Assessing Authority that the....