Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., U.P. v. Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut-1, Meerut

(Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)

Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., U.P. ___________________ Appellant

v.

Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut-1, Meerut _________ Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 3976/2007, decided on February 19, 2016

With

C.A. No. 1638/2006, C.A. No. 2443/2007, C.A. No. 2444/2007, C.A. No. 2445/2007, C.A. No. 3747/2007, C.A. No. 4704/2007, C.A. No. 5955-5956/2007, C.A. No. 3520/2008, SLP (C) No. 4537-4538/2008, C.A. No. 5894/2008, C.A. No. 5896/2008, C.A. No. 6411/2008, SLP (C) No. 14206/2008, SLP (C) No. 15616/2008, C.A. No. 141/2009, C.A. No. 2800/2009, C.A. No. 1877/2010, C.A. No. 5976/2010, C.A. No. 10824/2010, SLP (C) No. 21539-21540/2011, C.A. No. 6116-6124/2012, C.A. No. 6125/2012, C.A. No. 6126-6129/2012, C.A. No. 6130-6132/2012, C.A. No. 6133/2012, C.A. No. 6134/2012, C.A. No. 6135/2012, C.A. No. 6136/2012, SLP (C) No. 26664/2015, SLP (C) No. 26650/2015, SLP (C) No. 26649/2015, SLP (C) No. 26653/2015, SLP (C) No. 26654/2015, SLP (C) No. 26660/2015, SLP (C) No. 26658/2015, SLP (C) No. 26657/2015, SLP (C) No. 26655/2015, SLP (C) No. 26662/2015, SLP (C) No. 25833/2015, SLP (C) No. 26647/2015, SLP (C) No. 27683/2015, SLP (C) No. 27671/2015, SLP (C) No. 549/2016, SLP (C) No. 551/2016, SLP (C) No. 547/2016, C.A. No. 202-204/2016, C.A. No. 5237/2009, SLP (C) No. 4144-4146/2016

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also read and considered the order dated 29^th November, 2010 of this Court referring the matters to a larger bench for a decision on the question as to whether the definition of the term “input” in Rule 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 is to be understood to include items beyond the six items mentioned specifically in Rule 2(g). The answer to the question referred, according to us, is self-contained in the order of reference which has referred, inter alia, to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons [(1991) 3 SCC 617]. There are other decisions of this Court by Coordinate Benches (three judge) on the issue which need not be adverted to specifically inasmuch as it has been clearly held in Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (supra) that the word “include” in the statutory definition is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction. We answer the question referred to us in the above manner leaving it for the appropriate bench of this Court to decide on the factual parameters of the case(s) and the entitlement of the assessee(s) to CENVAT credit in the facts of each case.

———