Page 172 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

58 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

7. Mr. Chatterjee cites the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Col-
lector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T.
353 (S.C.) where the Supreme Court on its interpretation of sub-rule (1) of Rule
57A of the said Rules delivered its judgment, the relevant parts of which are set
out herein :-
“It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer ob-
tains credit for the Excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in
the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite
declaration and obtains an acknowledgement thereof. It is entitled to use
the credit at any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on
the excisable product. There is no provision in the Rules which provides for
a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been il-
legally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilised,
has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been
validly taken, and its benefit is available to the manufacturer without any
limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to
use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is, therefore, inde-
feasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw mate-
rial and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken on-
ly on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw material
to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise du-
ty on a final product manufactured on the very day that it becomes availa-
ble.”
8. The ratio of this case was approved by the Supreme Court in the re-
cent decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna v. New Swadeshi Sugar Mills
reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.).
9. Mr. Ganguli for the respondents argued that in the above judgments
the Notification 45/89-C.E., dated 11th October, 1989 was not under considera-
tion. The relevant part of the said notification is as follows :-
“(iii) The quantity of credit utilised for payment of duty on any in-
dividual clearance of the said final products shall not exceed rupees one
thousand per tonne of vegetable products cleared and the excess credit, if
any, available in the credit account shall not be refunded to the manufac-
turer or adjusted against or utilised for payment of duty on any excisable
goods under any other circumstances”.
10. To counter this argument Mr. Chatterjee showed us a decision of a
Learned Single Judge of this Court in Rasoi Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 101 (Cal.) which related to the self same notification.
Paragraph No. 14 of this judgment is very important and is set out hereinbelow :-
“Regarding the other objection of the respondents as regards reloca-
tion of the factory, after going through the provisions contained in Rules
57K to 57P and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, relied upon by Mr. Banerjee,
I find that according to those provisions, goods cannot be manufactured
without a licence. Those provisions demand that the manufacturing prem-
ises are to be specified in the plan while making application for licence. The
licence authorises the licence holder to undertake manufacturing operation
at the premises mentioned in the registration certificate. If one wants to op-
erate manufacturing process from more than one premise, separate regis-
tration is to be made for each of those premises. The object of such separate
registration is to ensure proper supervision by the Inspectors for proper ac-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  220