SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 717

2011 (7) Supreme 529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. K. Jain and H. L. Dattu, JJ.
Saraswati Sugar Mills — Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5295 of 2003
Decided on : 2-8-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When the wordings of notification is clear, then the plain language of the notification must be given effect to. By way of an interpretation or construction, the Court cannot add or substitute any word while construing the notification either to grant or deny exemption.
2. If an article is an element in the composition of another article made out of it, such an article may be described as a component of another article.

Headnote:Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 -Central Excise Rules, 1944- Rule 57Q - Iron and Steel structures manufactured and used captively in the factory for installation of the Sugar manufacturing plant by the assessee-Whether can be classified as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Rules, 1944-Plea of assessee that Iron and Steel structurals manufactured by the assessee within its factory used for the purpose of installation of sugar manufacturing plant were components of capital goods and hence, exempt from payment of excise duty by virtue of Notification No.67/1995 -Held in light of meaning of expression ‘component parts’ iron and steel structures were not essential requirements in the sugar manufacturing unit- Anything required to make the goods a finished item can be described as component parts- Iron and Steel structures would not go into the composition of vacuum pans, crystallizers etc- If an article is an element in the composition of another article made out of it, such an article may be described as a component of another article- Hence, structures in question did not satisfy description of ‘components’-No interference called for with impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 19 to 25)

       Facts of the Case :

        A.Issue in consideration in present appeal was whether Iron and Steel structures manufactured and used captively in the factory for installation of the Sugar manufacturing plant by the assessee can be classified as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Rules, 1944

       Findings of the Court :

        A. The Court held that in light of meaning of expression ‘component parts’ iron and steel structures were not essential requirements in the sugar manufacturing unit.

        B. Anything required to make the goods a finished item can be described as component parts.Iron and Steel structures would not go into the composition of vacuum pans, crystallizers etc. If an article is an element in the composition of another article made out of it, such an article may be described as a component of another article. Hence, structures in question did not satisfy description of ‘components’.

        C. No interference was called for with impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal. Appeal was dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

H. L. Dattu, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final Order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] dated 10.12.2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which has affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, levying the duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

THE ISSUE :

2. The bone of contention between the Appellant-assessee [hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’] and the Respondent [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’] can be crystallized thus: Whether the Iron and Steel structures manufactured and used captively in the factory for installation of the Sugar manufacturing plant by the assessee can be classified as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”].

THE FACTS :

3. The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal are:- The assessee is the manufacturer of Sugar and Molasses. The assessee is availing MODVAT credit facility on the excise duty paid for the capital goods used in the factory for manufacturing process under Rule 57Q of the Rules. In April 1999, the assessee, in order to modernize the manufacturing process of sugar and molassess, has installed new machineries by replacing the old one. However, certain machineries like cane milling plant, clarification plant, evaporator and pan boiling plant, power generation plant etc., which are specified as capital goods in terms of Serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the Table below Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 57Q of the Rules, required the support of structural items for their installation. In view of this, the assessee started the manufacturing of iron and steel structures, after purchasing excise duty paid iron and steel sheets, angles, nuts and bolts etc. for the installation of the said machineries. Thereafter, the assessee has filed a declaration under Rule 57Q of the Rules declaring Iron and Steel structures under sub-heading 7308.90 of Chapter 73 as capital goods. The assessee has also filed classification declaration under Rule 173B of the Rules dated 09.07.1999 for the Iron and Steel structures classifying it under sub-heading 7308.90 of Chapter 73 and claiming exemption under the Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 [hereinafter referred to as “Notification”]. The said Notification exempts the capital goods, as defined in Rule 57Q of the Rules, manufactured and used within the factory from the excise duty leviable on such goods as specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as “the Tariff Act”]. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ambala vide Office letter dated 20.01.2000 has issued a Show Cause Notice to the assessee for short payment of excise duty to the tune of ` 28,14,464/- for the period July, 1999 to September, 1999 as Notification is not applicable to the iron and steel structures. The said Show Cause Notice was replied by the assessee vide its reply dated 24.02.2000 claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification. The assessee has also produced various photographs, drawings and Certificate of the Chartered Engineers during the personal hearing before the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.03.2000 in order to show that the iron and steel structures are components of machinery and quintessential for its effective functioning. However, the Assistant Commissioner, vide its order dated 31.03.2000, confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of ` 5,00,000/- on the ground that the Notification is not applicable to the said Iron and Steel structures as they are neither inputs used in relation to the manufacture of final product nor capital goods as defined in Column 2 of the Table given below Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 57Q of the Rules. The assessee, aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commi












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top