9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23/2004-CE (NT), dated 10th September, 2004, issued under Section 37 of the Act. The Cenvat Credit Rules contain the provisions governing availability of Cenvat Credit, of the duty paid on inputs, and service tax paid on input services, used in the manufacture of excisable goods, or providing of output services. The present appeal is concerned with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules which, during the relevant period, read thus: "6. Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services.- (1) The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2). Provided that the CENVAT credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule. (2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs or input services, and manufactures such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the following particulars, namely:- (i) name, address and registration No. of the manufacturer of goods or provider of output service; (ii) date from which the option under this clause is exercised or proposed to be exercised; (iii) description of dutiable goods or taxable services; (iv) description of exempted goods or exempted services; (v) CENVAT credit of inputs and input services lying in balance as on the date of exercising the option under this condition; (b) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service shall, determine and pay, provisionally, for every month,- (i) the amount equivalent to CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods, denoted as A; (ii) the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used for provision of exempted services (provisional)= (B/C) multiplied by D, where B denotes the total value of exempted services provided during the preceding financial year, C denotes the total value of dutiable goods manufactured and removed plus the total value of taxable services provided plus the total value of exempted services provided, during the preceding financial year and D denotes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition (b), on or before the 30th June of the succeeding financial year, where the amount determined as per condition (c) is more than the amount paid; (e) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, shall, in addition to the amount short-paid, be liable to pay interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent. per annum from the due date, i.e., 30th June till the date of payment, where the amount short-paid is not paid within the said due date; (f) where the amount determined as per condition (c) is less than the amount determined and paid as per condition (b), the said manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service may adjust the excess amount on his own, by taking credit of such amount; (g) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service shall intimate to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, within a period of fifteen days from the date of payment or adjustment, as per condition (d) and (f) respectively, the following particulars, namely:- (i) details of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods and exempted services, month wise, for the whole financial year, determined provisionally as per condition (b), (ii) CENV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en. (4) No CENVAT credit shall be allowed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services, other than the final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), credit of the whole of service tax paid on taxable service as specified in sub-clause (g), (p), (q), (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzq) and (zzr) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act shall be allowed unless such service is used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services. (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either- (i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone; or to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorized operations ; or (ii) cleared to a hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking; or (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , opts not to maintain separate accounts, then, either (a) to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs, and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted goods, or providing of exempted services, subject to the conditions and procedures stipulated in Rule 6 (3A) [Rule 6(3)(ii)], or (b) to pay an amount equal to a percentage of the value of the exempted goods, or value of the exempted services, as prescribed by Rule 6(3)(ii). 5. During the period spanned by the dispute in the present appeal (1st January, 2007 to 31st March, 2011), the percentage stipulated in Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit rules was 10%, till 6th July, 2009, and 5% thereafter. 6. "Exempted goods" are defined, in clause (d) of Rule 2 [hereinafter referred to as "Rule 2(d)"] of the Cenvat Credit Rules as meaning "excisable goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty". 7. Rule 2(t) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is the standard provision, contained in similar definition clauses in other subordinate statutes, clarifying that words and expressions, used in the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no longer available to an assessee, after the insertion, in Section 2(d) of the Act, of the Explanation thereto, which deems any article, material or substance, which is capable of being bought and sold, to be marketable. The distinction between "saleability" and "marketability", which prevailed prior to the insertion of the said Explanation has, therefore, been eviscerated. 9. Two conditions, alone, therefore, are required to be fulfilled, in order for goods to be regarded as "excisable", for the purposes of the Act - or, therefore, for the purposes of the Cenvat Credit Rules - viz. (i) that they are specified in the first, or the second, Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and (ii) that they are capable of being bought and sold for a consideration. 10. The process of production, undertaken by the respondent, results in the emergence of four products, namely sugar, molasses, bagasse and electricity. These are classifiable under Sub-Headings 1701 1190, 1703 1000, 2303 2000 and 2716 0000 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tariff"), respectively. Under these Sub-Headings, sugar is exigible to duty @ 12.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of the above goods, was availed by it. 16. The proceedings, in the present case commenced with the issuance, to the respondents, of Show Cause Notice dated 20th December, 2011. The Show Cause Notice alleged that, as the respondent was manufacturing dutiable goods (sugar and molasses) as well as exempted goods (bagasse and electricity), using common inputs and input services, the duty/service tax paid whereon Cenvat Credit had been availed; and was neither maintaining separate accounts and inventory, in respect of the inputs, and input services, used in the manufacture of the dutiable, and exempted goods; nor reversing the Cenvat Credit of the duty, and service tax, paid on the manufacture of the exempted goods (bagasse and electricity), in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Rule 6 (3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the respondent was liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods, for the period prior to 6th July, 2009, and 5% of the value of the exempted goods, for the period after 7th July, 2009. As bagasse was not sold by the respondent, the Show Cause Notice demanded, from the respondent, 10%/5% of the price at which it was selling e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of the dutiable and exempted products, or the amount of Cenvat Credit availed in respect of such common inputs/input services and had also not followed the procedure stipulated in Rule 6(3A). In such a situation, the Commissioner observed that he was unable to verify the veracity of the respondent's contention regarding reversal, by it, of "proportionate" Cenvat Credit. 21. We may observe, here, that we have been unable to find, either in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, or elsewhere in the panoply of the Act or any Rules framed thereunder, any provision providing for reversal of "proportionate" Cenvat Credit. In fact, it was in order to mitigate the hardship, faced by assessees, who were using common inputs/input services, in the manufacture of exempted, as well as dutiable goods, and were not in a position to identify the exact quantum of Cenvat Credit relatable to the inputs/input services used in the manufacture of the exempted goods, that the facility of reversal, in accordance with the formula set out in sub-Rule (3A), read with sub-Rule (3)(ii) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, was introduced, by way of the Cenvat Credit (Amendment) Rules, 2008, notified v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal, was Appeal No. E/3753/2012, filed by the respondent. 24. By the impugned Final Order No. A/55843-55844/2016-EX [DB], dated 24th November, 2016, the Tribunal has allowed Appeal No. E/3753/2012, of the respondent. In doing so, the Tribunal merely followed its earlier decision in DSM Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2014 (304) ELT 582, which, in turn, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gularia Chini Mills v. UOI 2014 (34) STR 175 (All). Para 7 of the impugned Final Order passed by the Tribunal reads thus: "An identical issue has come up in Appeal No.58262/2013EX(DB) in the case of DSM Sugar Mills Ltd. 2014 (304) ELT 582, where the Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/51042/2014-EX(DB) dated 24.02.2014 has observed as under:- "The point of dispute in the case is that when there is a cogeneration plant in the appellant's sugar mill and the power generated, besides being used in the sugar mills for manufacture of dutiable final products (sugar and molasses), is also supplied to U.P. Power Corporation, whether in respect of the power sold to U.P. Power Corporation an amount equal to 5%/10% of the sale value of the electricity would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent proceedings. Substantial Question of Law 26. Vide order dated 3rd December, 2018, the present appeal was admitted, on the following substantial question of law: "Is the CESTAT correct in holding that as electricity is not excisable, Rules 6(2) & (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable and consequently input credit is admissible in the facts and circumstances of the case?" Rival Submissions 27. Detailed arguments were addressed, on the appeal, by Mr. Amit Bansal, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and by Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 28. The Revenue, in its appeal, adopts the reasoning of the Commissioner, in his Order-in-Original dated 28th August, 2012 supra and submits, further, thus: (i) The electricity, which was sold outside the factory to UPPCL, was not used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final product (sugar) by the respondent. Consequently, the inputs and input services, used in the production of such electricity, which was sold outside, would not be eligible for credit, as they fell outside the ambit of "input and input services", as defined by the Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een dismissed by the Tribunal. 30. In its counter-affidavit, filed in response to the appeal of the Revenue, the respondent has, on the other hand, contended thus: (i) In view of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gularia Chini Mills, which stood affirmed by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. D. S. C. L. Sugar Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC), electricity could not be regarded as "excisable goods". Gularia Chini Mills, moreover, had been followed, by the Tribunal, in DSM Sugar Mills Ltd., the Civil Appeal, against which, stood dismissed by the Supreme Court As reported in 2015 (324) ELT (A 80) (SC). Reliance has also been placed, in the counter-affidavit - though no reference, to the said decisions, was made during the course of arguments - on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 481 (SC) and of the High Court of Allahabad in Balrampur Chini Mills v. U.O.I. 2014 (300) ELT 372 (All). (ii) Of the total Cenvat credit on inputs and input services, availed by it, the respondent had reversed credit, proportionate to the quantity of inputs and input services used in the production of electricity which was sold o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent was sugar. The input used, for production of electricity was, therefore, she submits, bagasse. She relies on para 20 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd v. C.C.E. 1989 (44) ELT 794 (SC), which reads thus: "On an analysis and comparison of aforesaid, it is clear that the clarification in the form of trade notice issued by the Pune Collectorate in respect of Rule 56A was as much applicable to that rule as to Notification No. 201/79. In the premises, it is clear that the Tribunal should have held that even though a part of the ethylene glycol was contained in the by-product methanol, yet the credit of duty could not be reduced to the extent of the ethylene glycol contained in the methanol as ineligible. It is true that when in a fiscal provision, if benefit of exemption is to be considered, this should be strictly considered. But the strictness of the construction of exemption notification does not mean that the full effect to the exemption notification should not be given by any circuitous process of interpretation. After all, exemption notifications are meant to be implemented and trade notices in these matters clarify the stand of the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-product as a part and parcel of chemical reaction. It appears further on a comparison of the Rule 56A and the Notifn. No. 201/79 that these deal with the identical situation." 32. In fine, Ms. Lakshmikumaran submits that there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, which deserves, therefore, to be dismissed. Analysis 33. The Tribunal has proceeded on one solitary ground, i.e., that electricity could not be regarded as "excisable goods". The sequitur would, therefore, be that electricity would not be "exempted goods", either, for the purposes of the Cenvat Credit Rules, "exempted goods" being, per definition, excisable goods, which are either exempt from duty, or on which duty is chargeable at nil rate. 34. Mr. Bansal has voiced a preliminary objection, to the impugned Final Order of the Tribunal, to the effect that the excisability of electricity, never having been contested by the respondent, the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent's appeal on that ground. Mr. Bansal has endeavoured to point out that the only ground, on which the respondent premised its case, before the Tribunal, was that it had reversed "proportionate" credit, vis-à-vis the total Cenvat Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perates, may have a satisfactory response thereto. That, however, would be a call, to be taken by the judicial authority, depending on the facts of the case, and the point involved, and no iron-cast rule, or principle, can be postulated in this regard. Suffice it to state, at the cost of repetition that, in the ultimate analysis, justice must be done, after grant of free and fair opportunity to all parties before the court. 37. In the present case, however, the impugned Final Order was dictated in open court. It cannot, therefore, be said that either party, before the Tribunal, was taken by surprise. Moreover, no objection, by the Departmental Representative, who represented the Revenue before the Tribunal, to the effect that the Tribunal was deciding the appeal on a point not urged by the respondent, was taken. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the preliminary objection, of Mr. Bansal, to the Tribunal having proceeded on a point not urged by the respondent. 38. In any event, the point on which the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal is a point of law, i.e., the excisability, or otherwise, of electricity. It is required to be decided on the basis of the prevalent stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ltd is excisable or not". It is immediately apparent that the facts, as well as the issue, in Gularia Chini Mills, are identical to those in the present appeal. 43. Before paraphrasing the grounds on which the High Court held in favour of Gularia, the relevant passages, from the report, may be reproduced thus: "24. On perusal of the above judgment and order dated 18th May, 2012, it is clear that Rule 6 of 2004 Rules will only apply where a manufacturer manufactures both the excisable dutiable final products and also manufactures excisable exempted goods. Furthermore, for the applicability of Rule 6, manufacture of dutiable goods and manufacture of exempted goods are condition precedent. Thus, the law is well settled that bagasse is not manufactured goods but is a waste product, which emerges/comes into existence in the process of manufacture of sugar. Hence, it is not manufacture of exempted goods. Similarly, electricity is not exempted excise goods as held by the Supreme Court in Solaris Chemicals Ltd.12. ***** 26. Admittedly, none of these conditions are attracted in the instant case insofar as electrical energy, which is mentioned in Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in its findings. A perusal of Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act shows that the excisable goods are only those goods which are subjected to duty of excise as specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Since Column of rate of duty is blank, therefore, in view of Section 2 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, electrical energy is not being subjected to excise duty for the purposes of being excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. Furthermore, Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules, which is applicable only to excisable goods, can alone be treated as exempted goods for the purposes of Rule 6(3) of 2004 Rules, does not apply to electrical energy. 33. At the cost of repetition, we may add that the electrical energy generated from Naphtha, furnace oil, coal, etc., has been included under Chapter 27 as excisable goods on which the excise duty is being paid and the credit is taken in respect of the excise duty paid on such inputs but in the instant case, no direct inputs are involved nor any input services have been availed/used and the Commissioner, Central Excise, without any basis observed that the petitioners have admitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the rate of duty payable thereon, as contained in Chapter 27 of the Tariff, was blank. Electrical energy did not, therefore, constitute "excisable goods", as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. (iii) The only input, which went into the generation of electricity, was bagasse. Bagasse was a waste product. The electrical energy, which emerged from bagasse, and was sold to UPPCL could not, therefore, be regarded as "excisable goods". 45. Before proceeding to examine the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gularia Chini Mills, and to analyse the effect of the said decision on the present appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to two other judgments. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. 46. The first decision, to which reference requires to be made, is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12, on which extensive reliance has been placed by the High Court in Gularia Chini Mills, for the proposition that electricity/electrical energy did not constitute "excisable goods". In Solaris Chemtech Ltd., the respondent-assessee - hereinafter referred to as "Solaris" - was using Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and furnace oil to generate electricity, which was captive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electricity, could not be denied. The Supreme Court went on to expound on the concept of usage "in or in relation to the manufacture of final products", especially the expression "in relation to". In view of the wide ambit of this expression, the Supreme Court held that Modvat Credit, of the duty paid on LSHS, was available to Solaris. 48. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court in Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12 does not set out the period, to which the demand in that case pertained, it is obvious that it was prior to 1st April, 2000, as it dealt with Modvat Credit, which was replaced by Cenvat Credit with effect from the said date. The position in the Tariff, as it existed during the period to which Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12 related is, therefore, not known. It is also to be borne in mind that the Explanation, to Section 2(d) of the Act, whereby goods which were bought and sold were, ipso facto, deemed to be marketable, was introduced only w.e.f. 10th May, 2008. Prior thereto, it was necessary to establish, as an independent fact, the "marketability" of any item, in order to regard it as "excisable". Inasmuch as the judgment in Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12 was itself rendered prior to the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court, merit reproduction, in extenso: "6. The aforesaid judgment was pronounced by this Court related to the period before 2008. In the year 2008 there was an amendment in Section 2(d) as well as in Section 2(f) of the Act which defines 'excisable goods' and 'manufacture' respectively. Section 2(d) with the said amendment reads as under : Section 2(d) - "excisable goods" means goods specified in The First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986 ) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt; Explanation - for the purposes of this clause, "goods" includes any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable." 7. As per the aforesaid explanation, "goods" would now include any article, material or substance capable of being bought or sold for consideration and as such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. Thus, it introduce the deeming fiction by which certain kind of goods are treated as marketable and thus excisable. 8. However, before the aforesaid fiction is to be applied, it is necessary that the process should fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Appeals, in the following words (in para 13 of the report): "Cenvat Credit in respect of electricity was denied solely on the premise that the Bagasse attracts excise duty and consequently Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is applicable. Since this action of the appellant is found to be erroneous, all these appeals of the Revenue also stands dismissed." 51. The dismissal, in the case of Gularia Chini Mills8, was of the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said decision, before grant of leave therein and, therefore, before conversion, of the SLP, into a Civil Appeal, albeit with reasons, though brief. Dealing with the applicability of the doctrine of merger, vis-à-vis Article 141 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of an order dismissing a Special Leave Petition with reasons, the Supreme Court, in its well-known decision in Kunhaiyammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 held thus (in para 27 of the report): "A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a nonspeaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Chini Mills, that Chapter 27 of the Tariff "covers only those electrical energy which are generated from minerals fuels, mineral oils and products of the distillation, bituminous substances, mineral waxes, etc.", and did not cover electrical energy generated from bagasse, indicated that the position of the Tariff, which was before the High Court, was different from the Tariff position as it exists in the present case. He points out that Chapter 27 of the Tariff, in the present case, does not limit "electrical energy", as classifiable thereunder, to electrical energy generated from a particular source or sources. 55. It is true that Sub-Heading 2716 0000, in the Tariff, does not specify the source of "electrical energy", classifiable thereunder. It is also true that there is no Chapter Note in Chapter 27, or Section Note in Section V of the Tariff (which includes Chapter 27), limiting "electrical energy", classifiable under Sub-Heading 2716 0000, in any manner. However, we find that Chapter 27 is itself titled "Mineral Fuels, Mineral Oils and Products of their distillation; Bituminous substances; Mineral Waxes". Apparently, therefore, the High Court of Allahabad, while opining a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in DSM Sugar Mills Ltd.7, on which the respondent has placed reliance. In any event, the said order was passed on an application for waiver of pre-deposit, and does not, therefore, have any real precedential value. 60. We would be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd., as considerable reliance was placed, by Mr. Amit Bansal, on the said decision. Particular emphasis was placed, by Mr. Bansal, on paras 19 and 20 of the report which read thus : "19. The question which still remains to be answered is : whether an assessee would be entitled to claim CENVAT credit in cases where it sells electricity outside the factory to the joint ventures, vendors or gives it to the grid for distribution? In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC) the test laid down by this Court is whether the process and the use are integrally connected. As stated above, electricity generation is more of a process having its own economics. Applying the said test, we hold that when the electricity generation is a captive arrangement and the requirement is for carrying out the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in our view, assessee was not entitled to CENVAT credit. In short, assessee is entitled to credit on the eligible inputs utilized in the generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption). They are not entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent of the excess electricity cleared at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors etc., which is sold at a price." 61. From the discussion hereinabove, it is obvious that the decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd.9 cannot advance the case of the Revenue. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., was not a case in which electricity was generated out of bagasse, no issue regarding the applicability of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, in the context of electricity generated from bagasse and sold by the assessee, arose in that case. The Supreme Court has, in D.S.C.L. Sugar Ltd., clearly held that bagasse is not an excisable item and, that, therefore, a demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, on the ground of sale of electricity generated from bagasse, could not sustain. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., does not affect this legal position in any manner. 62. The inevitable se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
