Page 171 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RASOI LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 57

REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate and Jaybrata
Mishra, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Somnath Ganguli and Bhaskar Prosad
Banerjee, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - On 18th October, 2016 the appellant company (“the appel-
lants”) wrote the following letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise,
Kolkata-V, Commissionerate.
“As you are aware that we have already commenced manufacturing
of Corrugated Boxes and Baby Care products at out factory situated at Sa-
hipur, Banganagar, 24-Parganas (South). We may also manufacture other
dutiable excisable goods at the said factory premises in terms to come.
In order to discharge excise duty on the said excisable goods, we in-
tend to utilise the credit accumulated under the Money Credit Scheme (cap-
tured in RG 23B Part II register, duly reflected in the monthly Excise returns
under the remarks column). The said money credit was accumulated by us
in terms of Notification No. 45/89-C.E., dated 11-10-1989. The Notification
is not [in] existence and therefore, the said money credit balance being vest-
ed right, is now sought to be utilised by us against discharge of duty on the
said excisable goods.
As a responsible corporate assessee, we remain committed to operate
in accordance with the provision of the law. Therefore, we would like to
seek your kind approval before embarking on the proposed utilisation of
the accumulated money credit balance lying with us so as to avoid any dis-
putes with the department at a later date. You are requested to kindly re-
vert to the proposed utilisation within 15 days from the date of this letter.
We are writing this letter strictly without prejudice to any of our
rights and contentions.”
2. On 11th November, 2016 the Assistant Commissioner, Central Ex-
cise, Kolkata-V made the following reply :-
“The issue has been thoroughly scrutinised. The erstwhile Rule 57K-
57P of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with notification 45/89-C.E. (N.T.),
dated 11-10-1989 prohibits the utilisation of credit in the clearance of any fi-
nal product, other than the final product in relation to which such inputs
were intended to be used in terms of the said scheme”.
3. As we understand from the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee,
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the appellants were manu-
facturing goods under an agreement with the respondents which enabled them
to avail of input duty credit (hereafter referred to as Cenvat credit) on similar
conditions as in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. This is disputed by Mr. Ganguly for the respondents.
5. The question is whether the appellants were entitled to utilise the
unutilised Cenvat credit in the manufacture of a final product other than the final
product for which the inputs were utilised?
6. The appellants who were the writ petitioners want the answer to the
question in an affirmative from this Court. They are aggrieved by the judgment
and order of this Court dated 20th June, 2018 passed in WP 29003 (W) of 2016
(M/s. Rasoi Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Others) virtually dismissing the writ
application.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  219