9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending Notification No.34/2015 dated 17.07.2015 is null and void in the light of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Request of release the goods covered by 6 Bills of Lading, by extending the total exemption from payment of additional duty in terms of the original exemption Notification dated 9.7.2004. Held that:- Wherever the Notifications prescribed conditions, which were merely procedural in nature, but did not involve the payment of any duty of excise on the inputs, the Court interpreted the Notifications in favour of the assessee, in view of the fact that an importer could not comply with those procedural formalities. But, wherever the Notifications imposed either (i) a condition that the input used for the manufacture of the exempted goods, should have suffered a duty or (ii) a condition that duty ought to have been paid and CENVAT credit not claimed, the Court interpreted such Notifications in favour of the Revenue (except perhaps in the case of AIDEK and SRF). A Notification such as the one bearing No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004, which merely stipulates a condition that no CENVAT credit ought to have been availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would not have paid Duty of Excise to the Government of India on the inputs used in his product. Nevertheless he would equate himself with a person who has not claimed CENVAT credit and avail the benefit of the exemption notification. The result is that a domestic manufacturer pays an extra amount of ₹ 100/-, in the example given above, while the importer does not pay anything. Neither Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, nor Article III of GATT required that an importer should be placed in a more advantageous position than the domestic manufacturer. The only requirement under GATT and even under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is that the importer should not be put to a disadvantageous position than the domestic manufacturer. But what the petitioners want is to place the importer in an advantageous position. This is not permissible. The exemption notifications dated 17.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 are issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5A. Section 5A(1) itself empowers the Central Government to grant exemption either absolutely or subject to such conditions as they may stipulate. If the Central Government has the power to grant exemption subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment notifications dated 17.7.2015 and 21.7.2015. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petitions. - Decided against assessee. - W.P.Nos.24507, 26010 and 26011 of 2015 , and all connected pending MPs Cont. Petn. No.2069 of 2015 and Sub-A.No.776 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - V. Ramasubramanian And T. Mathivanan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr R Yashodh Vardhan, Sr. Counsel Mr S Krishnanandh Mr S Murugappan For the Respondent : Mr G Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr T Chandrasekaran SPC, Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J. By a Notification bearing No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004, issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, the excisable goods of the description specified in the table given under the Notification were exempt from payment of the whole of the Duty of Excise leviable thereon under the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, a proviso to the Notification restricted the availability of the benefit of exemption only to goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay and ordered notice in the review petition on 9.9.2015. As a consequence, the importers who had enjoyed the benefit of the original Notification dated 9.7.2004, are now denied the benefit of the same. 6. Therefore, two importers, have come up with these three writ petitions. The first writ petition W.P.No.24507 of 2015 is filed by a company by name HLG Trading, involved in the business of wholesale trading of yarn, fabric etc. The prayer made in W.P.No.24507 of 2015 is to quash the Notifications bearing Nos.34 and 37 of 2015 dated 17.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 with a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the original Notification dated 9.7.2004, to the imports made by the writ petitioner. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner came up with a Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.3 of 2015, seeking an interim direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to file manual Bills of Entry. In the said M.P.No.3 of 2015 in W.P.No.24507 of 2015, this Court passed an interim order on 26.8.2015. But immediately thereafter, the Union of India came up with M.P.No.4 of 2015 for modification of the interim order passed by us on 26.8.2015. In the mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, we are primarily concerned only with two writ petitions, to begin with. In one writ petition, the amending Notifications dated 17.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 are under challenge in entirety. In the other writ petition, the second importer is satisfied with a mere deletion of the words and not the buyer of such goods from the proviso to the amending Notification dated 17.07.2015. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE: 11. The grounds of challenge to the amending Notifications can be summarised as follows: (i) that under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the imported goods can be made to suffer an additional duty of Customs, commonly known as CVD, equivalent only to the duty of Excise leviable on goods manufactured domestically and that therefore if the domestically manufactured goods are exempt from payment of duty of Excise, no additional duty of Customs can be levied on the importers; (ii) that the impugned amending Notifications have been issued to overreach the decisions of the Supreme Court in Aidek Tourism Private Limited and S.R.F.Limited and hence they are contrary to law; (iii) that when for the application of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, an im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, we shall take them up in the same order, for consideration. THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE FOR CVD: 15. The fundamental premise on which additional duty of Customs is levied under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is to ensure that due to the imposition of a duty of Excise on an article manufactured in India, a domestic manufacturer does not suffer a disadvantage than the importer of the same article. This is why the additional duty of Customs is leviable at a rate equal to the Excise Duty, for the time being leviable on a like article, if produced or manufactured in India. In other words by imposing an additional duty of Customs, at the rate equivalent to the duty of Excise payable on the same article if manufactured in India, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides a level playing field to the importer as well as the domestic manufacturer. 16. This is why the Courts have expounded the scope of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in such a manner as to imagine the importer as a domestic manufacturer and to find out what he would have been subjected to, had he manufactured the same item in India. Keeping this fundamental premise in mind, let us move on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation: In this proviso, free trade zone and hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking shall have the same meanings as in Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 3. (2) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by special order in each case, exempt from the payment of duty of excise, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, any excisable goods on which duty of excise is leviable. 19. A combined reading of Section 3(1) and 5A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 together with the Schedules under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would show that all goods produced or manufactured in India can be classified into the following categories: (i) Goods which are not excisable, in view of the fact that they are not even mentioned in the Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Goods which are excisable at nil rate of duty, in view of the fact that they are included in the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985, but the rate of duty is indicated in those schedules as zero. (iii) Goods which are excisable at the rates specified in the Schedules under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under the notification No.30/2004 dated 9.7.2004, all goods under certain Chapter headings such as 50.04, 50.05, 51.05, 51.06.11 to 51.06.13 etc., were exempt from the whole of the Duty of Excise. But in so far as goods falling under certain Chapter headings such as 54.02, 54.03, 54.02.10 etc., are concerned, not all goods falling under those Chapter headings were granted exemption. The exemption was limited only to the goods described in Column (3) of the Table given under the Notification. 26. Therefore, the exemption notification dated 9.7.2004 covered all goods under certain Chapter headings and only some goods under certain other Chapter headings. Both these exemptions were also circumscribed by a proviso that restricted the benefit only to goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or capital gains had not been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. 27. To the notification dated 09.7.2004, a corrigendum was issued under notification No.334/3/2004, on the very same date, namely 09.7.2004. By this corrigendum, the words inputs or capital goods were directed to be read as inputs . 28. By the next notification bearing No.10/2005 dated 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods), under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty includes nil duty or concessional duty, whether or not read with any relevant exemption notification for the time being in force. 33. The manner in which the exemption notifications were amended from time to time would show that at times, the exemption granted were general in nature in respect of the goods falling under certain Chapter Headings. The exemptions granted under a few notifications were not general, but specific, in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted two conditions to be fulfilled namely (a) that the parts indicated therein should be used for refrigeration and air conditioning appliances in any one of the places set out in the Table and (b) that the procedure specified in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been followed. The importer, admittedly, fulfilled one of the conditions. The importer used the parts indicated in the Notification for setting up refrigeration or air conditioning appliances or machinery in one of the places set out in the Notification itself. But, the assessee obviously could not specify the second of the conditions, as the same was attracted only when the Central Excise Rules are applied. Therefore, the assessee paid the CVD and then made a claim for refund. But, the claim was rejected. 37. Their appeals against two orders of rejection, suffered different consequences at the hands of the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, both the assessee as well as the Department filed appeals. The Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeal. When the matter landed up in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court pointed out that for deciding the question of eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 3:2), held that Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is a charging section independent of Section 12 of the Customs Act. The view taken in Khandelwal that even if the article had not undergone a process of manufacture or production, it is still subjected to the levy of additional duty, was held, in Hyderabad Industries Limited, to be incorrect. 41. In Motiram Tolaram Vs. The Union of India [1999 (6) SCC 375], the Supreme Court was concerned with an exemption Notification No. 185/83, which reduced the rate of duty on polyvinyl alcohol manufactured from duty paid vinyl acetate monomer to 10% ad valorem. The Department refused the benefit of the Notification to the importer on the ground that the exemption Notification was conditional in nature and that the condition could not have been fulfilled by the importer. The assessees contended that they had imported the exempted goods, which were also manufactured only with the same raw material by the foreign manufacturer, but since no duty was payable under the Indian Law on the raw material, as it was manufactured by a foreign manufacturer, the condition stipulated in the Notification was impossible of being complied with by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to goods which have been made from duty paid material. In the said phrase, due emphasis must be given to the words 'has already been paid'. For the purposes of getting the benefit of the exemption under the notification, the goods must be made from raw material on which excise duty has, as a matter of fact, been paid and has been paid at the 'appropriate' or correct rate. Unless the manufacturer has paid the correct amount of excise duty, he is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Where the raw material is not liable to excise duty or such duty is nil, no excise duty is, as a matter of fact, paid upon it. To goods made out of such material, the notification will not apply. 44. In Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar Vs. Malwa Industries Limited [2009 (235) ELT 214 SC], the Supreme Court was concerned with a Notification dated 1.3.2006. As per the said Notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an exemption was granted subject to the condition that the product is used in the same factory. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the goods that were used m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty liability for the period covered by the invoices. Therefore, the benefit availed earlier was disallowed. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Adjudicating Authority. But, the Tribunal (CESTAT) reversed the decisions of the Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities on the ground that there was sufficient compliance of the conditions enumerated in the Notification. The High Court, in an appeal filed by the assessee, answered the question in favour of the assessee forcing the Revenue to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. 48. After noting the conflict between Usha Martin Industries and Motiram Tolaram that was resolved by a decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhiren Chemical Industries, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution Bench was concerned in Dhiren Chemical Industries, with a Notification for exemption. But, in Kay Kay Industries, the Supreme Court was concerned with a Notification issued under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 57A of the Rules, dealing with the availing of MODVAT credit. Therefore, the Court held that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhiren Chemical Industries would have no application to cases of that nature. 49. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which read as follows : If no credit under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 had been taken in respect of the inputs or capital goods, used in the manufacture of these goods. 52. The contention of the Department in S.R.F. Limited was that an importer could have never satisfied the aforesaid condition No.20, as the inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of those imported goods would not have suffered any duty of excise, making the assessee even eligible for a CENVAT credit. But, the Supreme Court held in S.R.F. Limited that the contention of the Department was completely contrary to the judgment in Thermax Private Limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the claim of S.R.F.Limited. 53. As we have pointed out earlier, the Central Government did two things, after the decision of the Supreme Court in S.R.F. Limited (rendered on 26.3.2015). The Central Government amended the Notification No.030/ 2004 dated 9.7.2004 by two Notifications, one bearing No.34/2015 dated 17.7.2015 and another bearing No.37/2015 dated 21.7.2015. By the first amendment, the Central Government substituted a new proviso in the place of the existing one. The new provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturer should not have claimed CENVAT credit on the duty of excise leviable on the inputs. 56. That the Notifications that came up for consideration so far before the Supreme Court could be classified into the above four types, can be easily from the following table : Decision Notification No. and condition stipulated therein Ashok Traders (Bombay DB) Notification No.302/79 dated 4.12.1979. It stipulated a condition that the exempted goods should have been manufactured from a particular raw material and that on such raw material, the appropriate amount of duty of excise should have been paid Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works The Court was not concerned with an exemption Notification, but concerned with an article, which was not manufactured in India and hence, the question was whether in respect of such an article, Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act could be invoked Thermax Private Limited Notifications 93/76 and 63/85. The product should be used for a particular purpose in any one of the places set out in the table under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; where the goods are actually manufactured. In case of imported goods, they should be used in the factory belonging to the importer where the manufacturing activity took place. Hari Chand Sri Gopal Notification No.121/94 dated 11.8.1994, which granted the benefit of exemption on specified intermediate goods captively consumed for the manufacture of final products fell for exploration. The doctrine of substantial compliance was held to be inapplicable where the clear statutory prerequisite is not met. Kay Kay Industries The Court was not concerned with an exemption Notification. It was concerned with Notification No. 58/97 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57A(6). Ahujasons Shawl Decision It is not clear from the report of the decision as to what type of a notification the supreme court was concerned about in this case. From the facts narrated in the first para of the law report, it can be Notification No. and condition stipulated therein presumed that exemption was available to unbranded shawls domestically man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a person, who never paid a duty of excise, on the inputs used for the manufacture of exempted goods, the question of claiming CENVAT credit would never arise. 60. A Notification such as the one bearing No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004, which merely stipulates a condition that no CENVAT credit ought to have been availed in respect of the duties paid on the inputs, is in no way different from a Notification, which stipulates a condition that the inputs ought to have suffered a duty and no CENVAT credit should have been claimed on the same. 61. In simple terms, we can understand the proposition by looking at the different alternative scenarios as follows : S. No. Conditions stipulated in the Notification Possible scenarios Result 1 A condition that the inputs ought to have suffered a duty, without any further rider in relation to CENVAT credit (i) In the first scenario, there may be cases where a manufacturer of exempted goods, who satisfies the condition, might have claimed CENVAT credit (ii) The same person might not have claimed CENVAT credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother merely stipulating that no CENVAT credit should have been claimed, is to ensure that though the goods by themselves are exempt, some element of duty has been paid on the inputs that were used in their manufacture. 63. However, drawing our attention to the original text of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947, to which India was a signatory, it was contended by Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel that the products of the Territory of any contracting party imported into the Territory of any contracting party shall not be subject directly or indirectly to internal tax in excess of those applied to like domestic product. Article III of the original text of GAAT 1947 reads as follows:- Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation 1. The contracting parties recognize that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or domestic pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, the action of the respondents, according to the writ petitioner is impermissible. 65. In support of the above contention, that no contracting State to be GATT 1947 can enforce or collect the tax putting an importer to an disadvantageous position, Mr.S.Murugappan learned counsel also relied upon a Report of the Panel of the United States with regard to the Measures Affecting Alcoholic Malt Beverages dated 19.6.1992. 66. Let us first deal with the submission based upon the report of the GATT Panel between Canada and USA. What happened in that case was that under a statute known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1990, the Excise tax of beer was increased. But the breweries located in United States with an annual production not exceeding 2 Million Barrels, had the benefit of a lower rate of tax for the first 60,000 barrels. This lower rate was not available to imported wines. Similarly, the statute increased Excise Tax of wine, but introduced a credit for the wine manufactured by small domestic producers. This credit was also not available to imported wines. Therefore, Canada initiated consultations with United States under Article XXIII. The consultations did not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set back, if the benefit of the exemption notification is made available to importers of mobile hand sets and tablet computers. After obtaining a copy of the said representation under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the impugned notifications dated 17.7.2015 and 21.07.2015 were brought forth under external pressure. 70. We have perused the copy of the representation dated 17.7.2015 submitted by MAIT to the Central Government. It is true that the association, which represents the interests of Information and Communication Technology Sector in India took up the issue with the Central Government, on the question of extension of the benefit of concessional rate of Excise Duty to imports of tablet computers and mobile hand sets. But the said representation merely projected the view point of the domestic manufacturers. As a matter of fact, the representation submitted by them contains a condition that they wanted to incorporate in the exemption notification. The condition that MAIT wanted the Government of India to incorporate in the notification No.12/2012 dated 17.07.2015 is as follows:- If manufactured in India and no credit under r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter would have attracted concessional excise duty as CVD, while the domestic manufacturer of such final products had to forgo input tax credit to be eligible for such concessional rate. This would put the domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage visa- vis imports and would adversely impact the Make in India Policy of the Government. 3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examined in CBEC and it was found that there were certain errors apparent on record/interpretational issues and, with the concurrence of the Ld. Attorney General, a Review Petition/Revision Application has been filed against the same. 4. However, keeping in view the adverse implications of the aforesaid judgment on the domestic industry, legal opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law Justice as to whether pending the aforesaid Review Petition/ Revision Application, such conditions in the relevant notifications be suitably amended so as to make the intention abundantly clear (that these conditions are to be satisfied by the manufacturers of such goods and not the buyer /importer of such goods). 5. In this context, opinion of the Ministry of Law Justice was also sought. With the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding out whether the benefit of the exemption notification is available to an importer or not. In other words, his contention is that if the exemption notification imposes a condition that can be complied with only at the preproduction stage by the domestic manufacturer, such a condition precedent cannot be expected to be complied with by an importer. On the contrary, if the exemption notification prescribes a condition that could be complied post-production by the domestic manufacturer, as it happened in the case of Aidek Tourism, then an importer can be expected to comply with such a condition. A condition which is impossible of being complied with by an importer, such as the conditions that arise at the pre-production stage, cannot be put against the importers. 76. Though the aforesaid argument has a sound logical basis, it does not have a legal basis. This can be seen, if we take a relook at the nature of the exemptions contemplated under Section 5A. We have given in a previous paragraph, a chart. It can be found from the chart that certain exemptions could be absolute and unconditional. If an exemption notification is absolute and unconditional, all domestic manufacturers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n event, he need not pay ₹ 200/- as Duty of Excise on the product manufactured by him. But he would have used inputs which had already suffered a Duty of Excise to the extent of ₹ 100/-. In other words, he is a person who gets the benefit of an exemption from payment of ₹ 200/-, due to his refusal to claim CENVAT credit to the extent of ₹ 100/-. 81. The second option open to him is to claim CENVAT credit. In which case, he will not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. As a consequence, he has to pay ₹ 200/- as Excise Duty on the goods manufactured by him. But due to his claim for CENVAT credit, he will end up paying ₹ 100/-. 82. An importer, if the argument of the petitioners are accepted, will have the benefit of the best of both the options. Since he is manufacturing goods outside the country, he would not have paid Duty of Excise to the Government of India on the inputs used in his product. Nevertheless he would equate himself with a person who has not claimed CENVAT credit and avail the benefit of the exemption notification. The result is that a domestic manufacturer pays an extra amount of ₹ 100/-, in the exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the importers and domestic manufacturers. They actually seek to discriminate one set of domestic manufacturers from another set of domestic manufacturers. A decision as to the category into which an importer will fall cannot therefore be taken to be discriminatory offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 86. Once it is found that the impugned notifications do not offend Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act or Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act or even Article 14 of the Constitution, the petitioners cannot successfully maintain the challenge. 87. One last argument advanced is that the petitioners are importers of some material that are manufactured by the use of some raw-material which attract zero rate of Duty under the Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, it is contended that at least in so far as the case of the petitioners are concerned, the distinction between domestic manufacturers who could comply with the conditions and those who cannot comply with the conditions is a myth. 88. But, there is a fallacy in the said argument. It may be true that the raw material, out of which the goods imported by the writ petitioners are manufactured, attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relation to the manufacture of final products are deemed to be inputs. 89. It may be of interest to note that in the case of silk itself, the process of manufacturing of silk fabric from raw silk, involves the following steps: (i) sorting and softening the cocoons, (ii) reeling the filament, (iii) packaging the skeins into bundles, (iv) forming silk yarn by twisting the reeled silk, (v) degumming the thrown yarn (to achieve softness and shine), (vi) dyeing wherever necessary. In these processes, a solution known as degumming solution is used. Sometimes, reeling the filament could happen mechanically, for which capital goods in the form of machinery may be used. Therefore, some of the items that are used in these processes, which naturally attract duty of excise, are treated as inputs. Once they are treated as inputs within the meaning of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, a credit can be claimed on the duty of excise duty on those inputs. Therefore, the fact that the raw materials do not attract a duty of excise is hardly a matter of concern. It would be a different matter if all the inputs which come within the definition of the expression input under Rule 2(k) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
