Page 173 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RASOI LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 59

counting of the credit, goods manufactured, assessment of duty, etc. in re-
spect of the goods produced at different places. But scheme granting mon-
ey-credit did not require that such credit is to be utilised only for the pay-
ment of duty by the manufacturer in respect of goods produced at the same
unit and not at the different units maintained by the same manufacturer.
Such right really accrues to the asset and it passes to the person who owns
such asset. Thus, it is preposterous to suggest that a manufacturer cannot
get the credit benefit in respect of the goods manufactured at his different
units and such benefit should be limited to the duty payable and the pro-
duction of the self same unit. I, therefore, hold that there is no impediment
in getting adjustment of the money credit accrued in respect of the goods
manufactured at New Alipore towards duty payable for the goods pro-
duced at the Bangannagar factory. It may not be out of place to mention
here that both the aforesaid factories are registered and licensed. The afore-
said question is, thus, answered in favour of the petitioner no. 1.”
“The second writ application being W.P. No. 983(W) of 2003, thus,
succeeds. Let there be orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the writ ap-
plication.”
“No costs.”
11. Therefore, the situation is like this.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. on considera-
tion of Rule 57A sub-Rule (1) of the said rules had opined that the unutilised
Cenvat credit on the inputs could be utilised for any other final product. This
was approved in the New Swadeshi Sugar Mills case by the same Court.
13. This Court on consideration of the notification dated 11th October,
1989 had ruled that Cenvat credit could be utilised in any unit of the same manu-
facturer. It did not lay down any ratio that the two final products could be differ-
ent. It only said that manufacture could take place in different units of the same
manufacturer. The above Supreme Court decision on consideration of substan-
tive Rule 57A sub-rule (1) has pronounced the dicta that Cenvat credit can be
utilised for manufacture of any final product of the same manufacturer. But that
case was not concerned with the said notification dated 11th October, 1989.
14. In those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents
should consider the request of the appellants made by the letter dated 18th Octo-
ber, 2016 read with the departmental reply dated 11th November, 2016 in a
proper proceeding constituted by the respondents, attended by the appellants
and the departmental representatives, hearing them, taking into account the
above decisions and the observations made above in the judgment and any other
decision or decisions cited by the portion by a reasoned order within 4 months of
communication of this order.
15. All points including the nature and scope of the credit available to
the appellants are kept open.
16. The appeal (MAT 1007 of 2018) is disposed of by setting aside the
impugned order dated 20th June, 2018.
17. Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  221