M/s Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar

M/s Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7269 OF 2009

M/s Steel Authority of India Limited …Appellant

Versus

Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs,

Bhubaneswar …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service

Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No. EDM-261/05, by which the

learned Tribunal has upheld the demand of Rs. 45,86,664/- (Rupees

Forty Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only)

and reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

holding that the appellant was not eligible for the duty credit in respect of

1

the ‘Guide Car’, the assessee – M/s Steel Authority of India Limited has

preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with

respect to Modvat credit on ‘Guide Car’ claimed by the appellant –

assessee.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal for the purpose of issue

involved in the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

A show cause notice dated 9.5.2000 was issued to the appellant

seeking to deny Modvat credit amounting to Rs.3,09,78,465/- availed by

the appellant on capital goods, i.e., ‘Guide Car’ during the month of

March, 2000. As per the show cause notice, the Modvat credit on ‘Guide

Car’ was not available since it was classifiable under Chapter subheading 8603.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Tariff’).

3.1 The appellant replied to the show cause notice. It was the case on

behalf of the appellant – assessee that there was no reason as to why

‘Guide Car’ should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00.

According to the appellant – assessee, ‘Guide Car’ is classifiable under

Chapter sub-heading 8428.90, as was being done by the supplier of the

same to the appellant. An opportunity of personal hearing was also

provided to the appellant.

2

3.2 Considering the fact that in the case of supplier, the ‘Guide Car’

was classified under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00, the Adjudicating

Authority was of the opinion that the appellant shall not be entitled to the

Modvat credit on ‘Guide Car’ considering Rule 57Q of the Central Excise

Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1944’). The

Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit amounting to Rs.

1,71,60,376/- wrongly availed by the appellant during the month of

March, 2000 which included the Modvat credit availed by the appellant

on ‘Guide Car’. The Adjudicating Authority – Commissioner also

imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules

1944.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-original

passed by the Commissioner – Adjudicating Authority, disallowing the

credit amounting to Rs. 1,71,60,376/- and imposing penalty of Rs.

5,00,000/-, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned

Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has

confirmed/upheld the demand of Rs. 45,86,664/- being the Modvat credit

availed by the appellant on ‘Guide Car’. The learned Tribunal has

reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the learned Tribunal upholding the demand of Rs.

45,86,664/- being the Modvat credit availed by the appellant on ‘Guide

3

Car’ and penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the assessee has

preferred the present appeal.

4. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the appellant has, though initially submitted that the ‘Guide Car’ shall not

be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00, but it shall be

classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8428.90, however considering

the fact that in the case of very supplier and with respect to very supply

of ‘Guide Car’, the appropriate authority classified ‘Guide Car’ under

Chapter sub-heading 8603.00, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant has fairly not pressed the said submission.

However, he has submitted that ‘Guide Car’ can be said to be

‘Component’ of Coke Oven Battery and therefore the case would fall

under serial No.5 of the Table given below Rule 57Q of the Rules 1944.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant that ‘Guide Car’ was used for the

purpose of transportation of hot coke coming out of the Coke Oven

Battery and therefore it can be said to be a ‘component’ and/or part of

the Coke Oven Battery. Therefore, it is vehemently submitted that

assuming that ‘Guide Cars’ are held to be classifiable under Chapter

sub-heading 8603.00, in that case also, the same should be considered

for capital goods credit as ‘component’ of the Coke Oven Battery.

4

4.2 In the alternative, it is submitted by Shri V. Sridharan, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the present

case supply of ‘Guide Car’ was in the month of November, 1999 and the

‘Guide Car’ was classified by the appropriate authority under Chapter

sub-heading 8603.00 subsequent to those supply and therefore the

classification of ‘Guide Car’ under heading 86.03 shall not be made

applicable retrospectively and it shall be made applicable prospectively.

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Collector

of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Limited, (1999) 7 SCC 633.

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri V. Sridharan, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the facts and

circumstances of the case and as there was no suppression and/or mala

fide intention on the part of the appellant in claiming the Modvat credit on

‘Guide Car’ and the appellant bonafidely believed that ‘Guide Car’ would

fall under Chapter sub-heading 8428.90 and therefore no penalty is

leviable.

4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid

decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

5. Shri V. Chandrashekara Bharati, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent – Revenue, while opposing the present appeal,

has vehemently submitted that as in the case of supplier ‘Guide Cars’

are classified under heading 86.03, thereafter it will not be open for the

5

purchaser to classify the goods under another heading, namely, in the

present case, under sub-heading 8428.90.

5.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Revenue that ‘Guide Car’ being a different equipment and distinct

from the Coke Oven Battery cannot be considered as ‘component’

and/or part of the Coke Oven Battery. It is submitted that therefore the

appellant shall not be entitled to the Modvat credit on ‘Guide Cars’ under

Rule 57Q of the Rules 1944. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the Revenue has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the

case of Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Delhi (2014) 15 SCC 625 on the expression ‘component’.

5.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid

decision, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of

supplier, ‘Guide Car’ was classified under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00.

As per the settled position of law, classification of a product done at the

consignor’s end shall be final and that cannot be changed/questioned at

the consignee’s end. Therefore, ‘Guide Car’ shall be treated and/or

considered as classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00 of the

tariff.

6

6.1 The short question which is posed for the consideration of this

Court is, whether the appellant is entitled to Modvat credit under Rule

57Q of the Rules 1944 on ‘Guide Cars’ treating the same as

‘components’ of Coke Oven Battery, as claimed?

7. The appellant has claimed the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of

the Rules 1944 on ‘Guide Car’. As per Rule 57Q with respect to goods

falling under Chapter 84 as mentioned at serial No. 2 in the Table

attached with the Schedule to the Tariff, there shall be credit of duty paid

on capital goods used by the manufacturer. As observed hereinabove,

‘Guide Car’ shall not fall under Chapter 84. Therefore, it is the case on

behalf of the appellant that it will fall at serial No. 5 of the Table, namely,

‘components’.

Rule 57Q of the Rules 1994, relevant for our purpose, reads as under:

“Rules 57Q. Applicability – (1) The provisions of this section

shall apply to goods (hereinafter in this section, referred to as

the ‘final products’) described in column (3) of the Table given

below and to the goods (hereafter in this section referred to as

“capital goods”), described in the corresponding entry in column

(2) of the said Table used in the factory of the manufacturer of

final products.

TABLE

S.No. Description of capital goods falling within the

Description of final Schedule to the Central Excise

Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of products 1986) and used in the

factory of the manufacturer

(1) (2) (3)

1. xxx xxx xxx

7

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. xxx xxx xxx

4. xxx xxx xxx

5. Components, spares and accessories of the goods

 Specified against S. Nos. 1 to 4 above

 Therefore, the short question which is posed for the consideration

of this Court is, whether ‘Guide Car’ can be said to be ‘component’ of

Coke Oven Battery as claimed by the appellant?

8. This Court had an occasion to consider the expression ‘component’

in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra). In the aforesaid decision,

this Court had an occasion to consider the dictionary meaning of the

expression ‘components’ in Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary; Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon and

Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon. Thereafter, in paragraphs 23 to 27, it is

observed and held as under:

“23. The expression “components” is not defined under the Act. Therefore,

reference can be made to dictionaries to understand the meaning of the

expression “components”. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, it is

defined as “constituent part”. In Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary,

Vol. 1, International Edn., the word “component” means a “constituent

part”. Further, “constituent” means “serving to form or compose as a

necessary part”. In Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., 2005 (by P.

Ramanatha Aiyar), the word “component part” is defined as “something

which becomes an integral part of the goods in question by losing its

‘physical and economic distinctiveness’.” It defines “constituent” (of a

component) as “that helps make up or complete a unit or a whole's one

part of something that makes up a whole”.

8

24.Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Vol. 2008-09 Edn., by Justice C.K.

Thakkar, describes the “components” as:

“It appears, therefore, that for an article to be called a component part, it

is not necessary that even if it becomes part of another article, it should

still retain its identity. All that is necessary to make an article a

component part is that it goes in to the composition of another article. If

an article is an element in the composition of another article made out

of it, such an article may well be described as a component part of

another article. It may be that the final product made may be in the

nature of a compound in which case, the elements forming component

parts may not be capable of any more separate identification. Equally, it

may be that when a machinery is assembled out of several parts

forming that machinery, those machineries, those parts, even after their

being filled may retain their individuality or identity.”

25. The meaning of the expression “components” as defined in the

dictionary is accepted and adopted by this Court in Star Paper Mills

Ltd. v. CCE [Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, (1989) 4 SCC 724 : 1990 SCC

(Tax) 138] and the same is quoted with approval in CCE v. Allied AirConditioning Corpn. [CCE v. Allied Air-Conditioning Corpn., (2006) 7 SCC

735].

26. In order to determine whether a particular article is a component part

of another article, the correct test would be to look both at the article which

is said to be component part and the completed article and then come to a

conclusion whether the first article is a component part of the whole or not.

One must first look at the article itself and consider what its uses are and

whether its only use or its primary or ordinary use is as the component

part of another article. There cannot possibly be any serious dispute that in

common parlance, components are items or parts which are used in the

manufacture of the final product and without which, final product cannot be

conceived of.

27. The meaning of the expression “component” in common parlance is

that “component part of an article is an integral part necessary to the

constitution of the whole article and without it, the article will not be

complete”.”

Therefore, the test would be whether the ‘Guide Car’ can be said to

be an integral part necessary to the constitution of the whole article,

namely, Coke Oven Battery and whether without it, the Coke Oven

Battery shall not be complete?

9

9. Considering the process and the manner in which and/or for the

purpose for which the ‘Guide Car’ is used, by no stretch of imagination, it

can be said to be a ‘component’ of Coke Oven Battery. It cannot be said

that without the ‘Guide Car’ the Coke Oven Battery shall not be

functional. The ‘Guide Car’ is being used for the purpose of transporting

the hot coke after it is processed in the Coke Oven Battery. Therefore,

‘Guide Car’ can be said to be a different equipment distinct from the

Coke Oven Battery and cannot be considered to be a part of the Coke

Oven Battery. In that view of the matter, the appellant shall not be

entitled to the Modvat credit on ‘Guide Car’ as ‘component’ and/or part of

Coke Oven Battery as claimed by the appellant. The Adjudicating

Authority as well as the learned Tribunal have rightly confirmed the

demand of Modvat credit availed by the appellant on ‘Guide Cars’. We

are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Adjudicating

Authority as well as the learned Tribunal.

10. However, at the same time and in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the penalty was not justified at all. The appellant bonafidely

believed that the goods would fall under Chapter sub-heading 8428.90

and/or that the ‘Guide Car’ can be said to be a ‘component’ of the Coke

Oven Battery. Therefore, the order of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed

by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.

10

11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the

classification of the ‘Guide Car’ under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00

shall be applicable prospectively and shall not be applicable

retrospectively with respect to supply in the month of November, 1999

and the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case if

Cotspun Limited (supra) is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance.

It is required to be noted that it was a case of self-assessment by the

supplier and the supplier classified the ’Guide Car’ under Chapter subheading 8428.90, though it was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading

8603.00. That thereafter the appropriate authority classified the ‘Guide

Car’ under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00. Therefore, it will relate back to

the original claim and/or relate back to the date of supply/selfassessment.

11.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in

the case of Cotspun Limited (supra) is concerned, the same shall not

be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before this

Court, it was a case of an approved classification list sought to be

corrected subsequently and to that it is observed that the levy of excise

duty on the basis of an approved classification list is the correct levy, at

least until the correctness of the approval is questioned by the issuance

of a show cause notice to the assessee. Therefore, on facts, the

11

aforesaid decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on

hand.

12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal with respect to Modvat credit claimed by the appellant on ‘Guide

Car’ is hereby dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority as well as the

learned Tribunal have rightly denied the Modvat credit to the appellant on

‘Guide Car’. The learned Tribunal has rightly confirmed the demand of

Rs. 45,86,664/- being the Modvat credit availed by the appellant on

‘Guide Car’. The present appeal is dismissed so far as the confirmation

of demand of Modvat credit availed by the appellant on ‘Guide Car’.

However, the order of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority,

modified by the learned Tribunal to Rs. 1,00,000/- is hereby quashed and

set aside. To that extent, the present appeal is partly allowed. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………..J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

12