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

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (1) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d of the credit has not been pressed by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.The petitioner's case is based upon Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the notifications of the Central Government of 1-3-1987 (Annexure-2), 1-10-1987 (Annexure-12) and 25-7-1991 (filed in Court on 22-1-1992). Rule 57A introduced a scheme popularly known as Modvat, which broadly speaking, contemplates that where some goods are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and excise duty or additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has been paid on such goods, described as inputs, the duty paid on such inputs would be allowed to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bottles only once when such bottles come to the factory of the manufacturer for the first time under the cover of excise duty gate pass evidencing payment of appropriate excise duty. The petitioner addressed a letter as per Annexure-8 on 17-8-87 to the Collector of Central Excise and Customs requesting instruction to the field officers that Modvat credit was available to the petitioner on the clarification issued by the Board. On 15-9-87 the petitioner issued letter to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Cuttack Division lodging claim on Modvat credit for an amount of Rs. 1,73,008.59 vide Annexure-A and Rs. 41,317.77 vide Annexure A/1 to that letter. The gate pass evidencing payment of duty are Annexure-10 series to the case. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed goods had not exceeded the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs so as to make itself eligible for exemption allowed under the notification. If the cost of the bottles would have been added, the aggregate value would have exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs and the petitioner would not be entitled to earn any exemption. The notification GE 5.1 was one made by the Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules providing exemptions of duty on excisable goods specified in the annexure to the notification and falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, referred to in the notification as "specified goods", and cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st of April in any financial year. The notification exempted, inter alia, in a case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the buyer to the assessee. It is Mr. Patnaik's contention that since glass bottles used for sale of aerated water are packing of durable nature and are returnable to the assessee, the valuation would not include the cost of the bottles. As the exemption notification itself directed that the valuation is to be made in accordance with Section 4, the petitioner rightfully did not include the value of the glass bottles while showing the aggregate value. The submission is correct. The exemption available under Rule 8(1) as per the notification is different from the benefit extended under Rule 57A which is the facility for availing credit. If the legislature and the Central Government allow two benefits to the assessee and direct that for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exemption is granted 10% ad valorem of duty payable on the specified goods, it becomes a value based tariff. The argument is wholly untenable as exemption of 10% ad valorem duty payable has nothing to do with imposition of duty on value basis. It merely stipulates that whatever is the duty calculated on the specified basis, such duty is to be paid 10% less if the exemption applies. 7.The last submission of the Standing Counsel is that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not allowable in any case. It is his submission that on the first hand there is no provision for any refund and on the other hand so far as duty paid on the inputs during the period from 1-3-87 to 1-10-87 is concerned, no credit facility would be available after 1-10-8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates