Page 198 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

84 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

quires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in
rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided.”
3.4 It is also submitted that the case law and the judgements on the
subject, cited by the appellant pertaining to interpretation of provisions of CCR,
2004 and refund of unutilised credit was wrongly rejected. He relied on the deci-
sions of judgement of CCE, Chennai-I v. Spic Ltd. - 2014 (305) E.L.T. 484 (Mad.),
wherein the High Court of Madras has held as under :
“18. It was pointed out by the Revenue therein that in the original Scheme
introduced, the application of the Scheme gave rise to a situation where the
nexus between input and output was lost, leading to an anamolous situa-
tion that though on the original item manufactured, a duty was liable to be
paid, the ultimate product remained a duty-free product. Thus, this, accord-
ing to the Revenue led to a situation, that where, on the item originally
manufactured, used as an input, duty was paid only in order to avoid pay-
ment of duty on the ultimate goods manufactured by them. The Apex
Court considered this issue and held that on the payment of duty on the in-
put and thereby utilising the facility for carrying out the credit towards Ex-
cise duty payable on the final products, right to the credit had become abso-
lute when the input was used in the manufacture of final product. By the
application of Rule 57F(4A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the credit at-
tributable to the inputs already used in the manufacture of the final prod-
ucts and which have been cleared from the factory is sought to be lapsed.
The Supreme Court observed that when the assessee was entitled to take
the credit of the input immediately on the input received in the factory on
the basis of the existing Scheme, “incidence following thereto must take
place in accordance with the scheme under which the duty had been paid
on the manufactured products.” In that context, the Supreme Court held
that “provision for facility of credit is as good as tax paid till tax is adjusted
on future goods on the basis of the several commitments which would have
been made by the assessees concerned.”
19. Reading the above to the case on hand in the background of DEPB
Scheme and the purpose of Modvat Scheme, we hold that availing of credit
is as good as tax payment for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise
Rules.”
3.5 In view of above judgment, it was impressed upon that the credit
availed on the input material is as good as the duty paid in cash. Therefore, the
first appellate authority has erroneously rejected the refund application of the
appellant for the unutilised Cenvat credit, not treating it as a duty, in spite of the
fact that the credit availed by the appellant of duty paid during the month on
inputs purchased and used to manufacture the final product could not be uti-
lised by the appellant because of the peculiar provisions of the rules restricting
the availment of Cenvat credit lying on the last day of the previous month and
hence the appellant discharged the duty in cash from PLA. It was also submitted
that due to the peculiar situation as per Rule 16(3) of Packing Machine Rules, the
appellant was not in a position to adjust the accumulated Cenvat credit, although
the same was used in the manufacture of excisable product, for discharging the
duty for the same month in spite of being available in the books of the appellant.
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that
while interpreting the statute the legislative intend has to be considered from the
language used and on could not pay attention to what has not been said. As a

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  246