9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after remission of duty upon destruction of final product, the manufacturer is not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in manufacturing such final product?" 3. By a judgment dated 29.08.2012, the Larger Bench, decided the reference, wherein, in the operative part of the order, it held thus : "20. Such being the position, we hold that sub-rule (5C) of the Rules is effective from September 7, 2007 and for input credited earlier, there is no scope of reversal of the credit if the finished product becomes unfit for human consumption unless any condition has been imposed for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 making it clear that the credit already taken is to be reversed." 4. By this application for review/modification, the applicant (original respondent) seeks modification of the above order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Full Bench in Tax Appeals No.2520 of 2010, 896 of 2011 and 1586 of 2010, to the extent in the operative part thereof it has observed thus: "unless any condition has been imposed for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 making it clear that the credit already taken is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the applicant (original respondent), the Commissioner had imposed a condition of reversal of CENVAT credit, which had been challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had held in favour of the applicant and reversed such condition holding that the Commissioner could not have imposed a condition for reversal of credit. It was submitted that therefore, the operative part of the judgement to the extent stated hereinabove, directly concludes the issue against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue without the same having been subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench. It was urged that after considering all the rules including rule 21 of the rules, the Full Bench held that there was no provision for reversal, under the circumstances, in the operative part of the order, there is a clear conflict inasmuch as, if there is no provision for reversal, it cannot be left to the discretion of the Commissioner whether or not to impose such a condition. Reference was made to the decision of the CESTAT in the case of Collector of Central Excise and Customs v. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 1993 (68) ELT 647 (Tribunal), to point out that the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 7, 2007 if the finished product becomes unfit for human consumption, but has qualified that same by stating that unless any condition has been imposed for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 making it clear that the credit already taken is to be reversed. It may be noted that the court while deciding the reference, has categorically held that in a taxing statute one has to look at what is exactly or clearly stated and there is no room for ascertaining any intendment of the legislature. It is well known that there is no equity about a tax and there is also no presumption as to tax. Over and above, nothing can be read in and nothing can be implied from a taxing statute. The court after going through the provisions of the rules relating to CENVAT, found that prior to introduction of sub-rule (5C) of rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, there was no provision, which provided for reversal of the credit by the excise authorities where it has been lawfully taken by a manufacturer. Therefore, the credit accrued at the moment the raw material or the input was used in manufacturing of a final product which was neither exempt from duty nor carried nil ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct reversal of credit already taken, the question of imposing any condition for reversal while granting remission of duty in terms of rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules would certainly not arise. Thus, it appears that the aforesaid part has crept in on account of inadvertent error and the same being in direct conflict with the main part of the judgment, requires to be deleted in the interest of justice. 9. Another notable aspect of the matter is that the issue as regards the nature of the conditions which can be imposed while passing an order of remission under section 21 of the Act was not subject matter of the reference, despite which the same stands decided against the applicant, which is clearly indicative of the fact that the portion of the paragraph of which deletion is sought by the applicant has crept in on account of inadvertent error, which needs to be rectified. 10. As regards the maintainability of this application for review, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741 wherein it has been held thus: 89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
