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

2015 (3) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on for the registration. The certificate of registration issued to the appellants clearly discloses that the application was filed on 01.05.1992. In fact, the certificate itself reads that the appellants have been registered under the Act in relation to the trade mark for telephone (basic and cordless) as of the date of 01.05.1992. Obviously, therefore, the authorities below erred in denying the benefit under the said notification w.e.f. 01.05.1992 to the appellants and order in that regard cannot be sustained. - The appellants are entitled for the benefit under the Notification Nos.175/86- CE dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 w.e.f. 01.05.1992 onwards. - Decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 3 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the accounts of the assessee was reversed. The assessee filed a claim for refund of the amount on the ground that it was not required to reverse the benefit of modvat credit taken by it on the inputs purchased prior to its opting to take benefit of the exemption notification referred to above. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal and the same was accepted and it was held that the modvat credit obtained by the assessee was not required to be reversed. Thereafter, the revenue approached the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which dismissed the appeal in view of the law laid down by a Five Member Bench in CCE, Rajkot Vs. Ashok Iron Steel Fabricators reported in 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urt held as follows:- It is clear from these rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknowledgement thereof. It is entitled to use the credit at any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on the excisable product. There is no provision in the rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the Excise Authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilized, has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its benefit is available to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on to manufacture of end product by the manufacturer. The chargeability to duty or non- chargeability due to exemption or notified nil rate is to be considered at the stage before goods are actually produced, but on receipt of inputs intended to be used in manufacture of such goods. That being so ultimate clearance of goods at nil rate due to contingency existing at the time of removal does not affect the entitlement that legally arises long before that date. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts. Since the language of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Rules is identical to that of Rule 57H(5) of the Excise Rules, we feel that the interpretation given by the Apex Court has to apply in the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as of the date of the making of the said application and that date shall, subject to the provisions of section 154, be deemed to be the date of registration . 9. A plain reading of the above provision of law would disclose that once the registration of the trade mark under the said Act is granted, it takes effect from the date of making of the application for the registration. The certificate of registration issued to the appellants clearly discloses that the application was filed on 01.05.1992. In fact, the certificate itself reads that the appellants have been registered under the Act in relation to the trade mark for telephone (basic and cordless) as of the date of 01.05.1992. Obviously, therefore, the authorities below erred in deny .....

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