Commr. of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Ginni Filaments Ltd., (SC) BS81947
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.N. Variava, Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5830 of 1999. D/d. 17.2.2005.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad - Appellant

Versus

M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. - Respondent

For the Appellant :- R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate, A. Subba Rao, Ms. V. Vijaylakshmi, Ashok Panigrahi, P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Ms. Madhurima Tatia, V. Lakshmikumaran, Rajendra Singhvi and Ashok K. Singh, Advocates.

A. Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 5A - Excise duty - Notification No. 123/81 CE dated 2-6-1981 - Exemption to goods brought in 100% export oriented undertaking - Conditions of eligibility for entitlement - Removal must be under CT-3 form and the goods must be used for or in manufacture of the product to be exported - Assessee running a 100% export oriented unit manufacturing cotton or filament yarn and bringing AC sheets, ACs, tables, chairs etc. in his unit - Such goods brought into the unit by the assessee do not qualify the test of participation or use for manufacturing - Assessee held not entitled to exemption.

[Para 9]

B. Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 5A - Words and Phrases - Capital goods brought in an 100% export oriented unit - The term "capital goods" is distinct from capital asset - Further held that every capital asset are not capital goods and that the capital assets become capital goods only when the same are used in the manufacture of the products in question.

[Para 10]

JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J. :- The issue in this civil appeal filed by the department under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relates to the eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 123/81-CE dated 2nd June, 1981, as amended.

2. M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the assessee") is 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing filament yarn. The assessee was licensed under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 bearing Licence No. 1-Customs/90 dated 13-3-1990. The assessee was also granted L-4 licence for the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under Chapter 53.

3. The assessee made an application under notification No. 123/81 to the Competent Authority for removal of certain goods, under form CT-3, from 100% Export Oriented Unit to its factory, namely, A.C. Sheets, Air-Conditioners, flush doors, typewriters, storewells, tables, chairs, which was granted.

4. On 2-1-1991, the department issued a show-cause notice calling upon the assessee as to why duty of Rs. 4,55,872.72 should not be recovered from the assessee for not using the goods, cleared under form CT-3 in the manufacture of cotton/filament yarn in their Undertaking.

5. By reply dated 31-1-1991, the assessee submitted that since the competent authority had allowed the above goods to be brought into their Undertaking from 100% export oriented unit under form CT-3 and since the said goods were brought into their undertaking in connection with the manufacture of combed cotton yarn, the requisite conditions mentioned in the notification No. 123/81 stood satisfied and the department was not entitled to demand duty from the assessee. The assessee further submitted that direct utilisation of the said goods in the manufacture of combed cotton yarn (which was an export product) was not necessary in view of the words "in connection with the manufacture" in the said notification.

6. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the show-cause notice holding that the assessee had failed to prove that the said goods were used in the manufacture of combed cotton yarn. Being aggrieved, the assessee herein went in appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the tribunal") which following its earlier judgments held that notification No. 123/81 should be given widest possible interpretation as its object was to increase the revenue and balance of payment position. In this connection, the Tribunal also placed reliance on the words "in connection with the manufacture" in the recital to the said notification.

7. In this appeal, we are required to decide the scope, ambit and effect of Notification No. 123/81, as amended.

8. To decide the above question, we quote hereinbelow notification No. 123/81-CE dated 2-6-1981, as amended :-

"EXEMPTION TO GOODS FOR HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS

APPENDIX

(Emphasis supplied)"

9. The above notification gave exemption to goods for 'use' in 100% export oriented unit. As can be seen from the preamble, the notification gave exemption to capital goods, raw materials, components, consumables etc. compendiously known as "goods" when brought into the undertaking of a licensed holder from the 100% export oriented unit approved by the Board under a certificate in form CT-3 "in connection with the manufacture of" products to be exported out of India. The said notification exempted the above goods from payment of basic excise duty and additional excise duty subject to conditions which further stipulated that exemption shall be granted only if the "goods" released from 100% export oriented unit were brought directly into the factory of the licensee and were 'used in the manufacture of the products' to be exported. (See: Conditions 1(b) (c) (f), 2, 3 as well as the various Clauses in the Appendix to the notification, relevant portions of which have been underlined in bold print). Therefore, in the preamble, which deals with removal of goods from 100% export oriented unit under CT-3 form, we find use of the words 'in connection with the manufacture of' which words are wider when compared to the words in the conditions for exemption, namely, 'used in the manufacture of'. Reading the notification in entirety, therefore, two stipulations have to be fulfilled, namely, removal of the "goods" from 100% export oriented unit to the factory of the licensee under form CT-3 and use or participation of the said 'goods' in the manufacture of products meant for export.

10. In the present case, the tribunal following its judgments in earlier cases has emphasised the words 'in connection with the manufacture' in the preamble while failing to notice the words 'used in the manufacture of' in the conditions which indicate use or participation of the said "goods" in the manufacture of products to be exported out of India. This test of participation has to be applied to the facts of each case. It is on fulfillment of both the above conditions, that the assessee becomes entitled to the benefit of the above notification. In number of cases, the tribunal has wrongly drawn an analogy from notification No. 272/79 which has no application to the present case. Each notification has to be read on its own terms and merely because the object of a notification is to increase resources of the State, conditions stipulated therein cannot be ignored. Further, it may be noted, that the word 'capital asset' is very wide. It includes all types of properties including consumables, raw material, components etc. However, capital assets become capital goods when used in the manufacture of products. Every capital asset is not capital goods. Hence, one has to read the words 'capital goods' in the context of the above notification. For example, a telephone instrument may constitute 'capital goods' where the assessee is in the business of telecommunication. However, if the assessee is in the business of manufacture of hydrogen peroxide, the same instrument cannot be construed as 'capital goods' for the purposes of the above notification. Hence, the peculiarities of the business or the undertaking is also required to be kept in mind while interpreting the said notification.

11. Applying the above tests to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the assessee has claimed exemption in respect of table, chairs, air-conditioners etc. which cannot be said to be 'goods' used in the manufacture of cotton or filament yarn. It is the case of the assessee that the words 'in connection with the manufacture' are wide enough to cover every item which is allowed to be removed under CT-3 certificate. This contention of the assessee is accepted by the tribunal erroneously as it has failed to look at the words used in the conditions enumerated in the notification. As stated above, we have to read the notification in its entirety. Further, we are dealing with exemption notification which has to be read strictly so far as the eligibility is concerned. It was for the assessee to prove by evidence, and not by submitting a chart, the nexus between AC Sheets and the manufacture of filament/cotton yarn. It was for the assessee to prove by evidence the participation of AC Sheets in the manufacture of filament/cotton yarn, which has not been done and, therefore, the tribunal had erred in admitting the claim of the assessee for exemption without analyzing the notification No. 123/81 dated 2-6-1981 (as amended).

12. For the reasons given hereinabove, this civil appeal filed by the department succeeds; the impugned judgment and order of the tribunal dated 4-2-1999 passed in Appeal No. E/A 2120/94-D is set aside; and accordingly the civil appeal stands allowed, with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.