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

2019 Supreme(SC) 2276

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vadodara-ii - Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4189-4196 of 2010 with Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9101 of 2014
Decided On : 03-12-2019

CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products cannot be allowed, and the exception to sub-rule (1) contained in sub-rule (2) itself contains an exception for inputs intended to be used as fuel.

Headnote:

MODVAT Credit - CENVAT Credit Rules - Rule 57B(1) of MODVAT Rules - Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules - The court discussed the conflict between MODVAT and CENVAT Credit Rules in the context of claiming CENVAT credit on duty-paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) used as fuel input for generating steam and electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from excise duty. The court held that CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products cannot be allowed, and the exception to sub-rule (1) contained in sub-rule (2) itself contains an exception for inputs intended to be used as fuel. The court found no conflict between the earlier judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and its own interpretation in CCE vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee claimed CENVAT credit on LSHS used as fuel input for generating steam and electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from excise duty. The Revenue disputed the correctness of this view and issued show-cause notices to recover the wrongly availed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal and Division Bench allowed the assessee's appeals, but the judgment was overruled by the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products cannot be allowed, and the exception to sub-rule (1) contained in sub-rule (2) itself contains an exception for inputs intended to be used as fuel. The court held that there was no conflict between the earlier judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and its own interpretation in CCE vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.

Issues: The main issue was whether an assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid LSHS utilized as an input in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products cannot be allowed, and the exception to sub-rule (1) contained in sub-rule (2) itself contains an exception for inputs intended to be used as fuel. The court found no conflict between the earlier judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and its own interpretation in CCE vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the order dated 10.04.2008 was set aside, except in respect of Appeal Nos. E 87-88/2005 before the Tribunal, where matters have been remanded by the Tribunal on points other than what has been decided by this judgment.

ORDER

R.F. Nariman, J. - This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Limited, (2013) 15 SCC 336 as follows:-

"15. There is an apparent conflict between GSFCL and Gujarat Narmada. In GSFCL a view has been taken that MODVAT credit can be taken on LSHS used in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty. Although this decision was rendered in the context of availing MODVAT credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they existed prior to the promulgation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 the principle of law laid down is general and not specific to the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision rendered in Gujarat Narmada has been rendered in the context of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and is, therefore, more apposite. However, since GSFCL does lay down a general principle of law, we have no option but to refer the issue to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict between GSFCL and Gujarat Narmada. The conflict to be resolved is whether under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 an assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid LSHS utilized as an input in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty."

2. The facts that are necessary in order to appreciate the reference so made are set out in the reference order itself as follows:-

"1. The assessee utilizes CENVAT duty-paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short "LSHS") as fuel input for generating steam. The steam so generated is utilized to generate electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer which is exempt from excise duty. According to the assessee, it is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the input, that is, LSHS even though fertilizer is exempt from excise duty. The correctness of this view was disputed by the Revenue.

2. Consequently, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") issued two notices to the assessee to show cause why CENVAT credit wrongly availed by it should not be recovered under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") read with Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee was also required to show cause why interest be not recovered on the wrongly availed CENVAT credit and why penalty be not imposed on it.

3. The first show-cause notice issued to the assessee was dated 8-3-2004 and pertained to the period 31-3-2003 to September 2003 while the second show-cause notice was dated 28-7-2004 and was for the period October 2003 to March 2004. The assessee replied to both the show-cause notices and after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner adjudicated the first show-cause notice by passing an order adverse to the assessee on 24-6-2004. The second show-cause notice was similarly adjudicated and an adverse order passed on 30-8- 2004. By these orders, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit wrongly claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner also directed the assessee to pay interest on the demanded amount and also imposed personal penalty under Rule 13 of the Rules.

Proceedings before the Tribunal

4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred two appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The appeals were numbered as Appeal Nos. E/2517 of 2004 and E/3672 of 2004.

5. For reasons that are not apparent from the record, both appeals were referred to a larger Bench and heard by the Vice-President and two members of the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for convenience as "the larger Bench"). By an order dated 27-12-2006/4-1-2007 ( Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, (2007) 208 ELT 342 (Tri) , the larger Bench held that the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on LSHS used as input for producing steam and electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer. According to the larger Bench

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top