M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Vs COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA
Bench: A.K. SIKRI,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-001288-001288 / 2005
Diary number: 1934 / 2005
Advocates: RAJESH KUMAR Vs
ANIL KATIYAR
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2005
M/S. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA
.....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6036-6038 OF 2008
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4886 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6749-6769 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7247-7281 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8186 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8187-8189 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9145-9164 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5473 OF 2013
Page 2
2
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as the issue
involved in these appeals is identical, though divergent view is taken by
the different Benches of the Tribunal. Issue pertains to grant of benefit
of exemption under Notification No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE both dated
01.03.2002. These notifications give the benefit of concessional rate or
nil rate of duty to the knitted garment manufacturers on certain
conditions. One of the conditions is for full exemption is that knitted
garments are exempt if manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which
appropriate duty of excise has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty
paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken. If Cenvat credit is
taken, the duty is at concessional rate.
2. The Revenue has taken the position that the benefit of these
notifications is available only when the garments have been
manufactured from the duty paid fabrics and in those cases where the
fabrics has not suffered excise duty, it cannot be said that the
appropriate duty of excise has been paid thereon and consequently the
benefit of notifications would not be available. The stand taken by the
assessees, on the other hand, is that Explanation II to the exemption
Page 3
3
notifications creates a legal fiction, specifying that for the purpose of
conditions of this notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to
have been duty paid even in the absence of production of documents
evidencing payment of duty. They also relied upon condition No. 3 of
this notification. Many Benches of the Custom Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') has accepted the plea of the
assessees holding that benefit of exemption notification would be
admissible. Many other Benches of the Tribunal have taken a contrary
view, thereby accepting the plea of the Revenue and holding that
Condition No. 4 is not satisfied. That is the precise reason for filing two
sets of appeals, preferred both by the Revenue as well as those
assessees.
3. In order to state the precise question of law that falls for consideration
and the backdrop in which it arises for discussion, we would take note of
the facts appearing in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2005 which is preferred
by an assessee.
4. Assessee is an integrated textile apparel manufacturer. Assessee
purchases excise duty paid yarn from the market on payment of excise
duty. Assessee does not take any MODVAT credit of the duty paid on
the yarn. Assessee manufactures the knitted fabrics in its factory out of
the duty paid yarn. The knitted fabric is entirely captively consumed in
the manufacture of knitted apparels. The apparels are thereafter
cleared outside the factory.
Page 4
4
5. Vide Union Budget 2002, a new excise duty scheme for textile sectors
was introduced. Under this scheme, vide Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE
and 15/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, fabric manufacturers and garment
manufacturers were given an option to operate under two different
schemes. Under one scheme, where the manufacturers of the fabric or
garment wants to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs
or the capital goods, excise duty @ 75% of the normal rate of duty of
12% was levied. Under another scheme, where the manufacturers do
not want to avail of the MODVAT facility, complete exemption from
excise duty to the fabrics and garments was granted. The various Sl.
Nos. of Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE prescribed these
two alternative schemes.
6. Notification No. 15/2002-CE vide Sl. No. 14 prescribed Nil rate of excise
duty for “Articles of apparel, knitted or crocheted” falling under Heading
61.01, subject to the following condition:
“If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics, whether or not processed on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act read with any notification for the time being in force or the Additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid and no credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.”
Explanation to Notification No. 15/2002-CE provided as under:
“For the purposes of conditions specified below, textile yarns or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid
Page 5
5
even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon”
7. Notification No. 15/2002-CE, as is evident from the preamble thereto,
grants exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable on knitted
garments falling under heading 61.01 subject to the satisfaction of
Condition No. 4 of this notification. As per Condition No. 4 of the
notification, knitted garments are exempt provided these garments are
manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate excise duty has
been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs or capital
goods has been taken.
8. Show cause notice dated 27.03.2003 was issued by the Commissioner
of Central Excise, proposing to deny the benefit of Notification
No.15/2002-CE to the apparels and demanding excise duty in respect of
the clearances made between 01.03.2002 to November, 2002. The
assessee submitted its reply. After considering the reply filed by the
assessee, Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida passed
order-in-original dated 31.07.2003 confirming the duty demand imposing
equivalent amount of penalty. On 20.01.2004, assessee filed appeal
No. E/251/03-A before the Tribunal against the above order of the
Commissioner. In that appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned final
Order Nos. 1239-1240/04-NB(A) upholding the order of the
Commissioner on the aspect of denial of Notification No. 15/2002-CE to
the apparels. However, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed
Page 6
6
on the assessee.
9. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that for coming to this
conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment of
this Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries1. In that
case, exemption notification came up for consideration and interpreting
the phrase “on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has
already been paid”, the Court held that in order to avail the benefit of the
notification, it was incumbent upon the manufacturer to actually pay the
duty, in the following words:
“An exemption notification that uses the said phrase applies to goods which have been made from duty paid material. In the same phrase, due emphasis must be given to the words “has already been paid”. For the purposes of getting the benefit of the exemption under the notification, the goods must be made from raw material on which excise duty has, as a matter of fact, been paid, and has been paid at the “appropriate” or correct rate. Unless the manufacturer has paid, the correct amount of excise duty he is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.”
10. The Tribunal has also rejected the contention of the assessee
predicated on Explanation II to the notification by observing that the said
explanation only dispenses production of documents evidencing
payment of duty and does not waive the condition of payment thereof.
11. Challenging the aforesaid rationale adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at
the impugned decision, the learned counsel for the Revenue made his
submission on two fronts. In the first instance, it was argued that the
1 (2002) 2 SCC 127
Page 7
7
Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dhiren
Chemical Industries case, which is a judgment of December, 2001
wherein earlier notification was interpreted by the Court. He submitted
that the position changed dramatically thereafter inasmuch as in order to
overcome the condition of actual excise duty, Explanation II was
specifically inserted in Notification No. 15/02 thereby creating a fiction of
deemed duty paid insofar as manufacturers of knitted textile are
concerned. For this purpose, he has taken us through the Budget
Speech/Explanatory Notes concerning the Notification Nos. 14 and
15/2002. He, thus, argued that judgment in Dhiren Chemical
Industries case was not applicable having regard to the aforesaid
provision specifically incorporated in the new notifications. In this very
hue, his second attempt was to argue that Explanation II of the
notification was not correctly interpreted by the Tribunal, thereby
defeating the very purpose for which this notification was issued.
12. Learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, argued on the
same lines on which the Tribunal has rested its decision.
13. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the view that
the stand taken by the assessees warrants to succeed.
14. We have already reproduced the relevant portion of Notification No.
15/2002, in particular Condition No. 4 contained therein as well as
Explanation II thereof. As pointed out above, in the Union Budget 2002,
Page 8
8
a new excise duty scheme for textile sector was introduced, as per
which manufacturers of the fabric or garments were given choice to opt
under one of two schemes. Normal rate of duty is 12%. The two
notifications provided exemption and concessional rates respectively.
Those who wanted to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the
inputs or the capital goods, were supposed to pay excise duty at
concessional rate i.e. 75% of the normal rate of duty. Under the other
scheme, full exemption from payment of duty was granted to those who
did not wish to avail the MODVAT credit facility. These two schemes
were explained in the Budget Explanatory Notes issued by the Central
Government, relevant portion whereof is extracted below:
“In the case of processed knitted fabrics of cotton, which were hitherto exempt from duty, an optional levy of 12% [8% Cenvat + 4% AED(ST)] has been prescribed. That is, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs (either on deemed basis or actual basis) and capital goods (on actual basis), he will be required to pay duty at 12% adv. [8% cenvat + 4% AED(ST)]. If he does not want to avail any credit on inputs and capital goods, he is not required to pay any duty. The rates of deemed credit for processed knitted fabrics of cotton are the same as applicable to woven fabrics.
Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE, both dated 01.03.2002 prescribes effective rates of duty of 'nil' or 12% adv. in the case of textile fabrics subject to the condition that the goods should have been made from textile yarns or fabrics on which the appropriate excise duty or CVD has been paid. It may, however, be noted that Explanation II to the notification makes it abundantly clear that all fibres and yarns are deemed to have been duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty. Therefore, the manufacturer is eligible for the rates prescribed in the notification. The only condition that has to be satisfied is with regard to availment or non-availment of cenvat credit, as the case may be.
Page 9
9
It is thus made clear that the benefit of the rate of duty should be allowed without insisting upon any documentary proof for payment of duty. However, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods on actual basis, he will be required to produce duty paying documents as prescribed under the Cenvat credit rules.”
15. A reading of the aforesaid Explanatory Note makes it clear that those
who did not want to avail MODVAT facility were allowed to clear the
goods without payment of any excise duty. It is in this context that the
authorities were asked not to insist upon any documentary proof for
payment of duty and this was transported into the notification, in the
form of Explanation II. It, therefore, becomes clear that when
Explanation II states that the duty shall be deemed to have been paid
even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty
thereon, it was clearly meant that no duty was required to be paid by the
manufacturers of knitted garments. Such an intention is clearly reflected
in the Government's own Budgetary Notes extracted above. We, thus,
hold that Explanation II to the said exemption Notification Nos. 14/2002
and 15/2002 create legal fiction and that was the precise purpose for
which this explanation was added. It is trite law that a fiction created by
a provision of law is to be given its due play and it must be taken to its
logical conclusion (Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog2).
16. It would be pertinent to mention here that Condition No. 3 which uses
the words “read with any notification for the time being in force” was put
2 (1994) 1 SCC 318
Page 10
10
in place to overcome the interpretation that was given by this Court in
Dhiren Chemical Industries case.
17. Learned counsel for the assessees has brought to our notice another
pertinent development. He submitted that because of conflicting views
of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal
which has answered the reference by detailed judgment rendered on
29.10.2014, accepting the plea of the assessees and rejecting the stand
of the Revenue. In any case, we have independently examined the
issue and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that
benefit of exemption notification would be available to all these
assessees.
18. As a result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and those
appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI; MARCH 04, 2016.