RAK CERAMICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions have been filed ventilating common grievance and raising common question of law. Therefore, these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The short fact leading to filing of the aforesaid writ petitions is as follows:

(3.) It is the contention of all the petitioners that the LPG cannot be treated to be other similar fuels, as the same is not used in the furnaces or boilers of the factories or manufacturing units or processing units. According to them, similar fuels must constitute and mean to that of the nature and character of the furnace oil and LSHS. Besides, the mode of usage is not the same as is described in the said amended Rules because none of the petitioners is using the LPG in the factories or manufacturing or processing units. They claim that the decision of the ARA in the case of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited holding that the LPG, which is a fuel, purchased from other dealers and used for the purpose of heating in the oven and in the manufacturing unit or processing unit will not be eligible for input tax credit, as per Rule 20(2)(q) of the Rules, is totally absurd and is patently wrong conclusion arrived at in the factual matrix of each case.