TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g or preventing the petitioners/companies from utilizing accumulated money credit that was lying in the petitioner's RG 23B, Part-II, as on 22-7-1996. 3. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 16743 of 2004, i.e. Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd., has also prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside Order-in-Original No. 01 & 02/Commr/2005, dated 18-1-2005, passed by respondent No. 1, making a demand of Central Excise Duty on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly availed money credit accrued in its favour, which was lying in its RG 23B, Part-II, as on 22-7-1996. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 14593 of 2003 are considered. 5. That the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of vanaspati/vegetable products, which are the goods classified under Heading 15.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Government issued a Notification No. 27/87 on 1-3-1987, thereby, allowing money credit at the rates specified in the Notification for use of unconventional oils for manufacture of vanaspati. That, thereafter, the Notification No. 192/87 came to be issued by the Central Government on 12-8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of vegetable products. While issuing Notification No. 45/89, the Central Government imposed similar conditions like the previous Notification Nos. 27/87 and 192/87 including restriction of utilization of money credit of Rs. 1,000/- only per ton of the vegetable products. Hence, the petitioner-company and similarly situated manufacturers started accumulating money credit in RG 23B day-by-day. It appears that, thereafter, the Union Budget was present before the Parliament and the Central Government prescribed nil rate of duty for vanaspati/vegetable products falling under Heading No. 15.04 of the tariff. At the relevant point of time, i.e. on 22-7-1996, the petitioner-company was having un-utilized balance of money credit of Rs. 6,34,51,009.56 in money credit register (RG 23B) for having purchased and utilized unconventional/minor oils. It appears that the Union Budget was presented before the Parliament on 28-2-2003, whereupon, vanaspati/vegetable products falling under Heading No. 15.04 was once again brought under payment of excise duty by prescribing 8 per cent. as the rate of duty, which is, thereafter, substituted by a specific rate of duty of Rs. 1.25 per kg. (i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly submitted that as such the issue/question involved in the present petitions is squarely covered by a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of "Rasoi Limited v. Union of India", 2004 (176) E.L.T. 101 (Cal.). It is submitted that with respect to the very Scheme of money credit and with respect to the very product, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that manufacturers like the present petitioners are entitled to avail and/or utilize the money credit lying in their RG-23B. It is also submitted that, as such, decision of the Calcutta High Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2005 (185) E.L.T. A170 (S.C.)], as the SLP against the said decision has been dismissed. It is, further, submitted that even otherwise considering the earlier decision of this Court, holding that as manufacturers changed the manufacturing process and plants, hoping to get money credit by way of rebate, vested right of utilizing money credit could not be taken away on rescission of the notifications. Therefore, the manufacturers are entitled to utilize the same in future for the vegetable products. It is, then, submitted that the very action on the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Scheme has been rescinded and or Excise Duty has been abolished. In Paras 11 to 14 of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge, observed and held as under; "11. Before I proceed to consider the respective submissions of the learned Counsel of the parties, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was retrospectively introduced by way of an amendment with effect from the very inception, i.e. 1944. The said provision is quoted below : "Section 38A. Effect of amendments, etc., of rules, notifications or orders. - Where any rule, notification or order made or issue under this Act or any notification or order issued under such rule, is amended, repealed, suspended or rescinded, then, unless a different intention appears, such amendments, repeal, supersession or rescinding shall not- (a) revive anything in force or existing at the time at which the amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding takes effect, or (b) affect the previous operation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded or anything duly done ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules 57K to 57P and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, relied upon by Mr. Banerjee, I find that according to those provisions, goods cannot be manufactured without a license. Those provisions demand that the manufacturing premises are to be specified in the plan while making application for license. The license authorizes the license holder to undertake manufacturing operation at the premises mentioned in the registration certificate. If one wants to operate manufacturing process from more than one premise, separate registration is to be made for each of those premises. The object of such separate registration is to ensure proper supervision by the Inspectors for proper accounting of the credit, goods manufactured, assessment of duty, etc., in respect of the goods produced at different places. But scheme granting money- credit did not require that such credit is to be utilized only for the payment of duty by the manufacturer in respect of goods produced at the same unit and not at the different units maintained by the same manufacturer. Such right really accrues to the asset and it passes to the person who owns such asset. Thus, it is preposterous to suggest that a manufacturer cann....