Page 113 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 791

“2. The relevant Rule reads as follows :
“57F. (4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), or
sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A and the notifications issued thereunder, any credit
of specified duty lying unutilised on the 16th day of March, 1995 with a
manufacturer of tractors, falling under Heading No. 87.01 or motor vehicles
falling under Heading No. 87.02 and 87.04 [or chassis of such tractors or
such motor vehicles under Heading No. 87.06] of the Schedule to the Cen-
tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) shall lapse and shall not be allowed
to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared
for home consumption or for export :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to credit
of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contained in finished
products lying in stock on the 16th day of March, 1995.”
21. This Court in reference to 57F(4A) took the view that right to credit
had become absolute at any rate when the input is used in the manufacture of the
final products. This Court held that the scheme sought to be introduced cannot
be made applicable to the goods which had already come into existence in re-
spect of which the earlier Scheme was applied. Following observations have been
made by this Court in paragraph 5 of the above judgment :-
“As pointed out by us that when on the strength of the Rules availa-
ble, certain acts have been done by the parties concerned, incidents follow-
ing thereto must take place in accordance with the Scheme under which the
duty had been paid on the manufactured products and if such a situation is
sought to be altered, necessarily it follows that the right, which had accrued
to a party such as the availability of a scheme, is affected and, in particular,
it loses sight of the fact that the provision for facility of credit is as good as
tax paid till tax is adjusted on future goods on the basis of the several com-
mitments which would have been made by the assessees concerned. There-
fore, the Scheme sought to be introduced cannot be made applicable to the
goods which had already come into existence in respect of which the earlier
Scheme was applied under which the assessees had availed of the credit fa-
cility for payment of taxes. It is on the basis of the earlier Scheme necessari-
ly that the taxes have to be adjusted and payment made complete. Any
manner or mode of application of the said Rule would result in affecting
the rights of the assessees.”
22. The observations in the above paragraph that facility of credit is as
good as tax paid till tax is adjusted on future goods were made in context of
57F(4A) of Central Excise Rules,1944.
23. The above observation cannot be read to mean that payment of Ex-
cise Duty by the appellant which was component of sale invoice purchasing the
raw material/inputs by the appellant is also payment of Excise Duty on raw ma-
terial/inputs.
24. By payment of component of Excise Duty as included in sale in-
voice is benefit which is given to appellant by virtue of credit as envisaged in
statutory scheme of Rule 57A to 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The above
judgment thus in no manner supports the submissions of the appellant for the
purposes of the present case.
25. Next judgment relied by Shri Ganesh in Collector of Central Excise,
Pune and Others v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and Others; (1999) 7 SCC 448 = 1999 (112)
E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). In the above case, this Court had occasion to consider Section 4
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  113