LexRAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., U.P. versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-1
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1152 RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., U.P. v. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-1 (Civil Appeal No. 3976 of 2007) NOVEMBER 29, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002: c r .. 2(g) - "Inputs" - Eligibility of for credit under the Rules - HELD: In Maruti Suzuki Limited*, the Supreme. Court while examining the scope and purport of the term "input" in Rule 2(g) observed that the said definition had three components viz. (i) the specific part, (ii) the inclusive part, and (iii) place 0 of use, and unless all the three parts were satisfied, credit cannot be claimed on a good as an "input" - The decision in Maruti case is to the effect that in order to fall within the ambit of the term "inputs" within the meaning of Rule 2(g}, the goods must be (i) used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, whether directly and indirectly, and whether the said E goods are contained in the final product or not, (ii) covered within the six categories of goods enumerated in Rule 2(g) and (iii) used within the factory of production - While the subject goods must qualify the first and the third parts of the definition, viz. the specific part and location of use, as F enumerated in the said judgment, but to confine the goods only to the inclusive part of the definition, that is, to the six categories of goods mentioned therein, may fall foul of the definition of the word "inputs" in Rule 2(g) - Prima facie, the Court is of the view that the legislature did not intend to restrict G the definition of "inputs" to only those six categories - It is trite that generally the word "include" should be given a wide interpretation as by employing the said word, the legislature intends to bring in, by legal fiction, something within the accepted connotation of the substantive part - It is also well H 1152 RAMALASAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., U.P. v. COMMNR.,1153 CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-1 . settled that in order to determine whether the word "includes" A has that enlarging effect, regard must be had to the context in which the said word appears - Thus, having regard to the language of Rule 2(g) and the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it appears that by employing the phrase "and includes'; legislature did not intend to impart a restricted B meaning to the definition of "inputs" and therefore, the interpretation of the said term in Maruti Suzuki Limited may require reconsideration by a larger bench - Accordingly, the papers of these cases be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench - Interpretation c of Statutes - Legal fiction. WORDS AND PHRAES: Word "include" - Connotation of. *Maruti Suzuki Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill 2009 (13) SCR 301 = 2009 (9) SCC 193 and Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2006 (1) SCR 465 = 2006 (2) SCC 351 - referred to. D The State of Bombay & Ors. Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor E Sabha & Ors. 1960 SCR 866 =1960 AIR 610; Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons & Anr. 1991 (3) SCR 307 = 1991 (3) sec 617; c.1. T., Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mis. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad 1971 (3) F SCC 550 ; Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors. 1996 ( 8 ) Suppl. SCR 547 = 1997 (9) SCC 71; T.N. Kalyana Mandapam Assn. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 169 = 2004 (5) SCC 632; The South Gujarat Roofing G Tiles Manufacturers Association & Anr. Vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. 1977 (1) SCR 878 = 1976 (4) SCC 601; R. D. Goyal & Anr. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 231 = 2003 (1) SCC 81; and Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc. Vs. Indian MRI Diagnostic and Research H 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Limited & Anr. 2008 (13) SCR 1140 = 2008 (10) SCC 227 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2009 (13) SCR 301 referred to para 8 B 2006 (1) SCR 465 referred to para 8 1960 SCR 866 relied on para 13 1991 (3) SCR 307 relied on para 14 c 1911 (3) sec 550 relied on para 15 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 547 relied on para 15 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 169 relied on para 15 D 1977 (1) SCR 878 relied on para 15 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 231 relied on para 15 2008 (13) SCR 1140 relied on para 15 E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.