2007 (11) TMI 246 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal allowed credit on RFO (residual fuel oil) holding that restriction u/not. 14/97 shall not applicable to RFO tribunal decided issue in favor of assessee relying on judgments in Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. s case, and Surya Roshni Ltd. s case revenue has not given any reason why impugned two decisions were not applicable to present case - we have no option but to conclude, that these judgments do hold good tribunal was justified - no question of law arises

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 14/97-C.E. (N.T.) regarding Modvat on RFO.

Analysis:
The reference application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act was filed to determine if the restriction under Notification No. 14/97-C.E. (N.T.) applied to taking Modvat on RFO, which was argued based on the substance being LSHS and not RFO. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order was challenged, with the petitioner contending that the substance purchased was LSHS, not RFO. The Tribunal's judgment was based on previous cases like M/s. Camphor & Allied Product Ltd. and Surya Roshni Ltd. where similar controversies were involved, leading to the setting aside of the Assessing Officer's order.

The judgments in M/s. Camphor & Allied Product Ltd. and Surya Roshni Ltd. cases were reviewed, and it was noted that the substance purchased from IOCL, Mathura, was considered RFO in all cases, resulting in the Assessing Officer's order being overturned. The petitioner's counsel was unable to confirm if these judgments were challenged further or had finality. The court observed that since the petitioner did not raise grounds challenging the correctness or applicability of these judgments to the present case, and the counsel could not provide the status of these judgments, it was concluded that the judgments held good.

The court highlighted that interfering in one industry's case would create an incongruous situation where different industries would have varying entitlements to Modvat credit, leading to adverse market conditions and discrimination. Therefore, the court dismissed the reference application, stating that the question framed did not arise or require a decision in the circumstances presented.