Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7534 of 2005
PETITIONER:
M/s. Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Union of India and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.528 of 2005]
S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave granted.
The Appellant herein inter alia is engaged in manufacture of
Hydrochloric Acid. It falls under Chapter Heading 29 of the First Schedule
of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It uses Naphthalene for the
manufacture of Hydrochloric Acid.
Chapter AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules")
provides for credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs.
(hereinafter referred to as "the Modvat Credit Scheme"). Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 57A which was applicable at the relevant time reads as under:
"The provisions of this section shall apply to such
finished excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as the
"final products"), as the Central Government may, by a
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf,
for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise
or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as may be specified in the
said notification (hereinafter referred to as the "specified
duty") paid on the goods used in or in relation to the
manufacture of the said final products. (hereinafter
referred to as the "inputs") and for utilizing the credit so
allowed towards payments of duty of excise leviable on
the final products, whether under the Act or under any
other Act, as may be specified in the said notification,
subject to the provisions of this section and the
conditions and restrictions that may be specified in the
notification."
Rule 56A of the Rules, however, provides for the special procedure
for movement of duty paid materials or component for use in the
manufacture of finished excisable goods. (hereinafter referred to as "the
Proforma Credit Scheme") Sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 56A of the Rules,
which are material for the purpose of this case, read as under:
"(8) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in
this rule or any change in the nomenclature or
classification of any goods consequent to the
commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5
of 1986), the credit of duty paid on any material,
component parts or finished product shall be allowed if
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
the credit of duty was allowed in respect of such
material, component parts or finished product under this
rule immediately before the commencement of the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986).
Provided that no such credit shall apply in respect of any
material, component parts or finished product, if such
credit was not allowable under this rule immediately
before the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 (5 of 1986).
(9) No credit of duty paid on any material, component
parts or finished product shall be allowed under this
Rule if credit of duty paid on such material, component
parts or finished product has been taken under rule
57A."
Credit under Rule 56A was said to be available on Naphthalene in
terms of a notification dated 29.12.1962. However, on or about 1st March,
1986, a notification bearing No. 177 of 1986 was issued under Rule 57A of
the Rules stating that the credit on inputs classifiable under Chapter Heading
27 of the Tariff Act would not be available. The Appellant herein during the
period September, 1991 to January, 1992 availed the credit of duty
amounting to Rs. 2,46,109/- on 1,04,119 kgs. of Naphthalene falling under
Chapter 27 of the Tariff Act in terms of Rule 57A. As the said credit facility
in terms of the Modvat Credit Scheme was not available in relation to
Naphthalene as an input for manufacturing of Hydrochloric acid, a show-
cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise in terms
whereof not only the wrong claim made on the part of the Appellant herein
as regard credit of input was pointed out, it was also proposed to disallow
credit of Rs. 2,46,109/- and a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules was
proposed to be levied. The Appellant herein did not deny or dispute in view
of the aforementioned notification No. 177 of 1986 that it has wrongly
claimed credit in terms of Rule 57A but submitted that it should not be
denied credit of duty on the input which was available prior to 1.3.1986
under Rule 56A. The said contention of the Appellant was rejected by the
Additional Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 12.12.1997
whereagainst an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Central
Excise. By an order dated 24.2.1998, the Commissioner allowed the appeal
recording that indisputably the input was received in the factory and was
used in the manufacture of final product and although initially the Appellant
claimed credit under Rule 57A, they found the same as inconvenient and
wanted to avail credit under Rule 56A(8) of the Rules.
The Respondent No. 2 herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith
preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which having been allowed; the
Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court. By reason of
the impugned judgment the same was dismissed.
Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant would submit that wrong mentioning of a provision of law cannot
be a bar in claiming relief to which the Appellant was otherwise entitled to
and, thus, the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in
disallowing the same.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the
other hand, would submit that the Appellant having claimed credit in terms
of Rule 57A, must be held to have availed the same and in that view of the
matter, Sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A would be applicable in the instant case. It
was further submitted that the procedure for claiming relief under Rules 56A
and 57A being different, nothing has been produced before the authorities to
show that the Appellant was otherwise entitled thereto.
Before adverting to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we would
place on record that upon receipt of the show-cause notice, the Appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
herein categorically made a claim before the Assistant Commissioner that it
intended to return the credit taken in terms of Rule 57A of the Rules and
avail the benefits in terms of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 56A thereof. In its order
dated 12.12.1997, the Assistant Commissioner noticed that the assessee had
taken credit wrongly and, thus, it is not eligible for credit under Rule 56A of
the Rules. The Commissioner, on the other hand, opined that the Appellant
would be so entitled. The Tribunal did not discuss the question in great
details but considered the question from the point of view of applicability of
its earlier in CCE v. Crest Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and having found the same to
be not applicable allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The High Court
affirmed the said order of the Tribunal stating:
"The fact of the matter is, as noticed by us above, that
the petitioner claimed modvat credit only under Rule
57A. As a matter of fact, not only that no claim was
made by the petitioner under Rule 56A(8) but also there
was no entries made by the petitioner in RG 23A (sic 23)
register. The petitioner claimed modvat credit under
Rule 57A but strangely the Commissioner of Appeals
allowed the credit to the petitioner under Rule 56A(8).
When the petitioner had claimed benefit under Rule
57A, in our considered view, the petitioner could not
have claimed the benefit of modvat credit under Rule
56A(6) particularly when the conditions precedent under
Rule 56A were also not satisfied. The judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no
application."
It is now a well-settled principle of law that wrong mentioning of a
section would not be a ground to refuse relief to an assessee if he is
otherwise entitled thereto.
In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile
Mills Ltd. [66 ITR 710], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court opined:
"\005If for reasons recorded by the departmental
authorities in rejecting a contention raised by the
assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is
justified, it would be open to the departmental
authorities and the Tribunal, and indeed they would be
under a duty to grant that relief. The right of the assessee
to relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him."
Yet again in Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, U.P. and Others [(1986) 3 SCC 439], it was observed:
"\005It is contended that an obligation was imposed on the
Income Tax Officer by the statute to grant such relief
and it could not be refused merely because the appellant
had omitted to claim the relief. While we believe the
appellant is right in his contention, we do not think that
the mere existence of such an obligation on the Income
Tax Officer is sufficient\005"
Sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A of the Rules debars an assessee from taking
benefit of one or the other sub-rules of Rule 56A if credit of duty paid on
such material, component parts or finished product has been taken under
Rule 57A. Thus, the said provision merely debars taking of credit both
under Rules 56A and 57A. The Appellant herein although had taken credit
as regard input of Naphthalene in terms of Rule 57A, evidently, the same
was not applicable in his case. He had, therefore, no other option but to
return the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the
word ’taken’ must be understood in its proper perspective. A person cannot
take the benefit unless final order of assessment is passed. Only because in
his books of accounts entries are made for taking of the credit in terms of
one provision of the Rules, the same if ultimately found to be inapplicable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
and return of the credit is taken effect, we are of the opinion that there cannot
be any legal bar in claiming the exemption under another rule. However, we
are not sure as to whether the Appellant had complied with the provisions for
taking credit in terms of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 56A of the Rules or not if it
was not otherwise entitled thereto. For the aforementioned purpose, thus, it
is necessary that the claim of the Appellant be considered afresh by the
Assistant Commissioner of Excise.
We, therefore, while setting aside the order of all the authorities as
well as the Tribunal, remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for
his determination as to whether the Appellant herein was entitled to take the
credit in terms of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 56A of the Rules or not. It would be
open to the Appellant herein to show that it was so entitled.
The Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside with
the aforementioned directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, there shall be no order as to costs.