Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S Srd Nutrients(P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 July, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9294/2012
M/S SRD NUTRIENTS(P) LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Guwahati High
Court (for short the High Court) dated 07.12.2011 by which the
appellant’s appeal preferred under Section 35G of the Central
Excise Act, 1944, against the order of Customs, Excise And Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata in Appeal No. Ex. Ap.
306/06, was dismissed.
3. The appellant was availing exemption in terms of Notification
No.33/99-CE dated 8.7.99 as a new unit and in terms thereof was
refunded Rs.1,73,10,473 from October 2002 to December 2002. This
notification was modified on 23.12.2002, which restricted the
quantum of refund available to the assessee. Later, the
notification dated 23.12.2002 was validated retrospectively by
Finance Act, 2003. Based on that, the matter was reviewed and on
re-assessment,
Signature Not Verified
vide original order dated 13.5.2003, a sum of
Digitally signed by
Rs.35,31,810/- was found due and payable by the appellant, pursuant
babita pandey
Date: 2025.07.31
17:03:35 IST
Reason:
to which, a demand notice was issued to the appellant.
1
4. The case of the appellant is that in respect of the period
regarding which the demand was raised, the appellant had CENVAT
credit of Rs.98,38,935/- available in its account therefore,
instead of raising the demand, Revenue ought to have recovered the
demanded amount by adjusting it against the CENVAT credit available
with the appellant.
5. The aforesaid plea of the appellant was not accepted by CESTAT
on the ground that from the communications available on record, it
did not appear that the appellant made a request for adjustment of
the CENVAT credit available with it against the amount payable
towards excess refund.
6. Aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, appeal was filed before the
High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
7. On 04.05.2012, when notices were issued on the special leave
petition filed by the appellant, seeking leave to appeal against
the order of the High Court, following order was passed:
“Issue notice in the special leave petition as also in
the prayer for interim relief, confined to the
question of payment of interest.”
8. The learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that
under the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944,
the Revenue is entitled to deduct the amount payable from any money
owing to the person from whom such sums are recoverable or due. It
is the case of the appellant that since there is no dispute as
regards CENVAT credit of Rs.98,38,935/- available with the
appellant, the Revenue ought to have adjusted the demand against
2
the aforesaid credit even in absence of any specific claim for such
adjustment.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that
this question is no longer available for adjudication in the
context of the limited notice that was issued by this Court vide
order dated 04.05.2012. According to him, as far as liability
towards interest is concerned, Section 153(4) of the Finance Act,
2003, which has received Presidential assent on 14.05.2003,
validity of which has been upheld, now governs the field. He
submits that sub-section (4) of Section 153 of the Finance Act,
2003, clearly provides that if an amount is to be recovered, the
interest would be chargeable on expiry of 30 days from the date on
which the Finance Bill, 2003 received the assent of the President
and in the event of non-payment of duty or interest or other
charges so recoverable, interest @15% per annum shall be payable
from the date immediately after the expiry of the said 30 days till
the date of payment. It is the case of the Revenue that interest
would therefore be chargeable from 14.06.2003 up to the date of
actual payment.
10. In response to the above submission, the learned counsel for
the appellant submits that in the instant case the appellant has
made a debit entry in the CENVAT credit available in its account
and that would amount to payment.
11. In our view, the argument in respect of debiting account qua
CENVAT credit available cannot be permitted to be raised now, as it
was neither raised before CESTAT nor the High Court. Insofar as
3
recovery by way of adjustment is concerned, that may be an option
available to the Revenue under Section 11 but there is no statutory
obligation on the Revenue to adopt that mode even in absence of a
request. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submission that
Revenue ought to have recovered the amount by adopting that mode of
recovery. Besides that, the notice issued by this Court is confined
to the payment of interest. In such circumstances, insofar as the
demand notice qua excess refund is concerned, no fault can be found
with the same.
12. Insofar as payment of interest is concerned, in our view, that
would have to be calculated in terms of the provisions of the
statute (i.e., Section 153(4) of Finance Act, 2003), the validity
of which has been upheld by this Court. We, therefore, do not find
any merit in this appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………..J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………..J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
New Delhi;
23rd July, 2025
4
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.16 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9294/2012
M/S SRD NUTRIENTS(P) LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent(s)
Date : 23-07-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHFor Appellant(s) : Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Adv.
Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Nitum Jain, Adv.
Mr. Swastik Mishra, Adv.
Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
Mr. B K Satija, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Dixit, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Signed Order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHI GUPTA) (RAVINDER KUMAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5