Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (3) TMI 688 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
Refund claim for debited amount towards written off semi-finished goods.

Analysis:
The issue at hand pertains to a refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,96,984/-, which was debited due to written off semi-finished goods in the appellant's books of account. Initially, the claim was rejected by the District Commissioner through an Order-in-Original dated 15-3-99. Subsequently, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on the principle of natural justice by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the claim was rejected again after a hearing, as per the Order-in-Original dated 13-11-2001. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) in Vadodara upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.

Upon reviewing the records and submissions from both parties, the core issue revolved around the interpretation of a Board Circular dated 22-2-1995. The crucial question was whether the material written off by the claimant would fall under the purview of this circular. The Order-in-Original extensively deliberated on this matter and concluded that the claimant had not actually paid duty on the semi-finished products but had reversed the Modvat credit associated with the material. The circular stipulated that once such materials were written off, the equivalent Modvat credit must be reversed, eliminating the eligibility for a refund claim.

The reasoning provided in the Order-in-Original and upheld in the Order-in-Appeal aligned with clause (iii) of the aforementioned Circular. Consequently, the presiding judge found no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and deemed the current appeal devoid of merit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with the pronouncement made in court on 29-3-2005.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates