Holding

The CENVAT scheme is not substantively different from the MODVAT scheme, and the Jaypee Rewa Cement decision continues to apply, allowing credit for inputs used outside the factory.

Summary

Vikram Cement sought CENVAT credit for explosives used in quarrying limestone, which were later used in cement production, despite the explosives never entering its factory. The issue was whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement, which allowed MODVAT credit for such inputs, applied to the CENVAT Rules 2000. The Court examined the definitions of "input" under Rule 57AA of the CENVAT Rules and the presence of a provision analogous to Rule 57J of the MODVAT scheme (Rule 57AB). It held that the CENVAT scheme is essentially a re‑arrangement of the MODVAT scheme and that the earlier decision remains applicable, overruling the contrary view in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. JK Udaipur Udyog. Consequently, Vikram Cement is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the explosives, and the reference was answered in its favour.

Issues considered

Whether the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE (2001) regarding MODVAT credit applies to the CENVAT Rules 2000.
Whether inputs used outside the manufacturer's factory, such as explosives in limestone quarrying, qualify for CENVAT credit.
Whether the definition of "input" under Rule 57AA of the CENVAT Rules differs substantively from that under the MODVAT Rules.

Legislation cited

Subjects

CENVAT creditMODVATinput tax creditexplosiveslimestone quarrycement manufacturingCentral Exciserule interpretationjob workSupreme Court reference

Judgment

'
' MIS VIKRAM CEMENT
v.
A

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

JANUARY 18, 2006

[RUMA PAL, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) B

.. \ CENVAT Rules, 2000---Central Excise Rules, 1944-Rules 57AA, 57AB
and 57AC and erstwhile Rules 57A to 57J---CENVAT credit-On input used
outside factory-Explosives (input) used in quarrying limestone which in turn
used for manufacturing cement (final product) in factory situated at some c
distance away from the limestone mines-Held: Qualifies for CENVATcredit-
Earlier decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement, that MOD VAT was allowable on use
of explosives in manufacture of cement irrespective of the fact that explosives

., were used directly in limestone mines and never entered factory of manufacturer
of cement, equal~v applies to CENVAT Rules which replaced the MODVAT
).
D
Rules-Scheme of CEN VAT credit no different in substance from MOD VAT
'
Rules.

Modified Value Added Tax Scheme (MODY AT) was introduced in
1986 granting credit of excise duty on inputs used in or in relation to the
manufacture of final products. The scheme was contained in Rules 57A E
to 57J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In *Jaypee Rewa Cement where
the input in question was explosives used in quarrying limestone which in
turn were used in manufacture of cement, a three Judges Bench of this
' \. Court had held that MODVAT was allowable on the use of explosives in
manufacture of cement irrespective of the fact that explosives were used
directly in limestone mines and never entered factory of the .manufacturer F
of cement.
The MODY AT Rules were subsequently replaced by the CENV AT
Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in **J.K. Udaipur Udyog held that
the decision in.Jaypee Rewa Cement did not apply to the CENVAT Rules.
That view was doubted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereupon G
a reference was made to the present three Judges Bench for deciding the
I
-1 question whether the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would continue to
' apply to the CENV AT Rules, 2000.
Answering the reference, the Court
465 H
466 Slll'RFME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A HELD: I. I. The schemes of MODV AT and CENV AT Credit are not
different. 1475-Ci

1.2. Basically there was a re-arrangement of the earlier rules which
in substance remained the same. 1473-A-BI

**Commissioner a/Central Excise, Jaipur v. JK. Udaipur Udyog ltd.,
B
(2004) I 71 ELT 289 SC, overruled.

*Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, (2001) (133) ELT 3 SC, referred to.
1 ::..
2.1. In JK. Udaipur Udyog the Court answered the question, whether
the explosives used for blasting purposes in the mines and which had not
c been used in the factory premises for production or in relation to the
manufacture of cement could qualify for CENVAT credit, in the negative.
Three reasons were given by the Court for holding that credit could be
taken only on inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer of the
final product. 1475-B; D-EI
D 2.2. First, the Court held that the definition of input given in sub-
\.

A
rule(d) of Rule 57 AA was "entirely different from the manner in which
the said word had been expounded in the explanation to Rule 57 A of the
MODVAT Rules". This reading of the provision is not acceptable. There
was only a re-arrangement of the several provisions of Rule 578 in Rule
E 57 AA. Rule 57 AA is in fact more broad based than Rule 578. Analyzed,
it is clear that sub-rule (d) of Rule 57 AA has merely reframed Rule 578
to include all the ingredients of inputs while at the same time broadening
the base not only by referring to "all goods" but also by using the word
"includes". 1475-D-E; 473-DI •'
F 2.2. Second, the Court proceeded on the basis that under the
CENVAT scheme there was no provision similar to Rule 57J. But in fact,
Rule 57J was replaced in substance by Rule 57AB, which provision was
overlooked. Deletion of Rule 57J of the MODVAT Rules had led to
controversy and on 29th of August, 2000, a clarification was issued by the
Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). Consequently, with the
G intention of re-introducing the benefit granted earlier under Rule 57J, Rule
57AB was introduced under the heading "CENVAT credit". Rule 57AB
effectively duplicate~ the substance of Rule 57J(t) and (2) and deals with
a situation where inputs are received by a job worker for production of
intermediate goods which are used in the manufacture of a final product.
H 1475-F; 473-F-G; 474-C, H; 475-AI
_._

VIKRAM CEMENT!'. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. INDORE [RUMA PAL. J.] 467
"'\ 2.3. The third reason given by the Court in J.K. Udaipur Udyog for A
holding th.at the CENV AT Scheme was different from the MODV A'!
Scheme was Rule 57AC(l). However, that Rule is limited to inputs received
in the factory of the manufacturer and does not impinge on Rule 57AB at
all. 1475-F-Gl

3. Thus, the doubt expressed by the refei:riag Bench about the B
correctness of the decision in J.K. Udaipur Udyog was well founded. Having
regard to the fact that the CENV AT Rules in effect substitute the
~· MODV AT Rules, the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would continue to
apply. The decision in J.K. Udaipur Udyog holding to the contrary is not
good law. 1476-A-Bl
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1197 of2005.

From the Judgment and Order No. 1118/04-NB-A dated 19.10.2004 of
the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in
-' Appeal No. E/2928/04-NB-A.
D
.....
WITH

C.A. Nos. 3422/2004 and 4149-4153/2004, 4120-4122/2004, C.A. Nos.
7175-7189/2004, C.A. Nos. 2318-2320/2005, C.A. Nos. 1815, 6514, 1613,
6169-71, 6698 of2005 and SLP (C) No. 23205/2003 & SLP (C) No. 19603/
E
2005

Joseph Vellapally, V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, Rajesh Kumar,
, \ Sanjay Grover, Ms. Prabha Swami, Sudhir Gupta, S.S. Hussain Rizvi. M.P.
Vinodh and R. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.
F
Rajiv Dutta, T.A. Khan, Ms. lndu Shanna, Raghu Nath Kapur, Ms.
Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, A.T. Rao, V.K. Venna and P. Panneswaran for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

- ~
RUMA PAL, J. The question whether the decision in Jaypee Rewa
Cemenr v. CCE, (2001) 133 ELT 3 SC would apply t<i the CENVAT Rules
2000 framed under the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (referred to as the
G

'Act') is to be decided on a reference niade in this case. A Bench of two
judges of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise. .Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur
Ut~rog Ltd. (2004) 171 ELT 289 SC held that Ja.ipee Re1ra Cement did not H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006[ I SC.R

A apply to the CENV AT Rules. The view was doubted in this case by a Bench
of coordinate strength which referred the following question to us:-·'

In the light of the provisions of the Cenvat scheme vis-a-vis Modvat
scheme reproduced hereinabove, we are of the view that the
observations made in paragraph 9 of the decision of the Division
B Bench, quoted above, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,
.Jaipur v. .f.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., reported in (2004) 171 EL T 289
needs reconsideration".

The reference was made in the factual context of the appellants availing
ofCENVAT credit on explosives and other inputs used in quarrying limestone,
c which was in turn used for the manufacture of cement and clinkers, which
are classifiable under Chapter 25. The limestone mines of the appellants are
situated at some distance away from the factory premises of the appellants.
The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellants were not entitled to the
credit availed of by the appellants and raised a demand for excise duty only
D on the explosives. The narrower question raised in this appeal therefore is
whether the adjudicating authority was correct in denying the appellants the
CENV AT credit on the inputs.

On the broader question, namely, whether there is a difference in
substance between the MODY AT and the CENV AT schemes, Modified Value
E Added Tax Scheme (MODY AT) was introduced in 1986 granting credit of
excise duties used in· or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The
scheme was contained in Rules 57A to 571 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
(referred to as the 'Rules'). We set out below the relevant extracts of these
Rules:- . '

F '"Rule 57A - Applicability.

(I ) xxxx xxxx xxxx

(2) xxxx xx xx xx xx

( 3) xx xx xx xx xxxx
G
( 4) The credit of specified duty under this section shall be allowed on
inputs used in the manufacture of final products as well as on inputs ~
used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products whether
directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or
not.
H
VIKRAM CEMENTv. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. INDORE (RUMA PAL,J.] 469
""'I Rule 578. Eligibility of credit of duty on certain inputs-(1) A
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57 A, the manufacturer
of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the specified duty
paid on the following (inputs), used in or in relation to the manufacture
of the final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether
contained in the final products or not, namely:-
B
(i) inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of
production;
(ii) paints;
(iii) inputs used as fuel;
c
(iv) inputs used for generation of electricity or steam, used for
manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within
the factory of production;

.. (v) packing materials and materials from which such packing
materials are made provided the cost of such packing materials D
·' is included in the value of the final product;
(vi) accessories of the final product cleared alongwith such final
product, the value of which is included in the assessable value
of the final product.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-rule, it is hereby clarified E
that the term 'inputs' refers only to such inputs as may be specified
in a notification used under Rule 57A". {Emphasis supplied}
'-)
We observe that Rule 578 commences with a non obstante clause. It
allows credit to be taken by a manufacturer on inputs used in or in relation
to the manufacture of the final products whether directly or indirectly and F
whether contained in the final products or not. There is no qualification as
to where the inputs must be used in the main body of sub-rule (I).
Qualifications have been introduced to the extent stated in Clauses (i) to (vi)
read with the Explanation. Thus ..:lause (i) provides for inputs which are

- ~
manufactured and used within the factory of production. Paints. fuel, packing G
materials and accessories are also treated as inputs under clauses (ii), (iii), (v)
and (iv) without any requirement for user within the factory. Clause (iv)
provides for credit on inputs used for generation of electricity or steam used
for manufacture of the final products or for any other purposes "within the
factory of production". It appears to us on a plain reading of the clause that
the phrase "within the factory of production" means only such generation of H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j2006J I S.C.R.

A electricity or steam which is used within the factory would qualify as an
intennediate product. The utilization of inputs in the generation of steam or
electricity not being qualified by the phrase "within the factory of productitm"
could be outside the factory. Therefore, whatever goes into generation of
electricity or steam which is used within the factory would be an input for
B the purposes of obtaining credit on the duty payable thereon. As far as the
Explanation is concerned, the inputs are restricted to inputs notified under
Rule 57 A. There is no dispute that both explosives and limestone are notified
under Section 57 A for manufacture of the final procjuct viz. cement.

The next relevant rule is Rule 57F. What we are concerned with is sub-
C rule (4) of Rule 57F. This provides:
"( 4) The inputs can also be removed as such or after they have been
partially processed by the manufacturer of the final products to a
place outside his factory under the cover of a challan specified in this
behalf by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, for the purposes
D of test. repair, refining, re-conditioning or carrying out any other
operation necessary for the manufacture of the final products or for
manufacture of intermediate products necessary for the manufacture
of final products and return the same to his factory".

Therefore credit on inputs sent by a manufacturer from the factory to
E a job worker for test, repair etc. but ultimately utilized in the final product,
is allowable.

Then comes Rule 57 J which, in so far as it is material, reads:-

Rule 5 7J. Credit of duty in respect uf inputs used in an inlermediate
F product. -(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules. the
manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit of the specified duty
paid on inputs described in column (2) of the Table below and used
in the manufacture of intermediate pruducls described in column (3)
of the said Table received by the said manufacturer for use in or in
relation to the manufacture of final products described in the
G corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table:·

.. (2) The manufacturer of final products shall take credit under sub-
rule (I) only ifthe intennediate products are manufactured in a factory •
as a job work in respect of which the exemption contained in the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
H
VIKRAM CEMENTI-. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [RUMA PAL,J.] 471
'·\ (Department of Revenue) No.214/86-Central Excises, dated the 25th A
March, 1986 has been availed of'.

(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx

[Emphasis supplied]

This Rule allows credit on inputs used in manufacture of intermediate
B
products described in column 3 of the Table provided the intermediate products
are received by the manufacturer for use in or in relation to the manufacture
\
of final products described in the corresponding entry in column 4 of the
Table. Explosives, limestone and cement are admittedly covered by columns
1,2 and 3 respectively of the Table. c
It may be noted at this stage that Rule 57 J(2) was explained by a Trade
Notice No.38/1999 dated 2nd April, 1991 issued by the Bombay Collectorate.

-
It was said :-

"the basic aim of the MODV AT Scheme is to avoid the cascading D
effect of duties on a product. Therefore, the scheme permits MODV AT
"'· credit on all goods forming a pan of the final product, though the
final product may be manufactured in several stages, provided duty
is paid at each stage of the manufacturing chain.

However, to ensure an unbroken chain of MODVAT, rule 57J has E
been incorporated under the MODV AT Scheme so as to extend credit
of duty on certain inputs, even in respect of exempted intermediate
products (notified under Notification No.351/86. C.E., dated
f - ~
20.6.1986) which are brought from outside. However, one of the
provisions of this notification requires that the intermediate products
should be manufactured in a factory as a job work and exemption F
contained in Notification No.214/86-C.E. dated 25.3.1986 should have
been availed in respect of them. Thus, it may be observed that rule
57J grants limited flexibility of job work. The rule merely requires
that the unit availing this facility should be a job worker in terms of
Notification No.214/86-C.E. A manufacturing unit of the same G
manufacturer can also be a job worker. Therefore, so far as the
aforesaid manufacturing unit is job worker, it would also be eligible
~
for credit under rule 571".

We do not, for the purpose of this reference, discuss Rule 570 which
deals with credit on capital goods used as inputs. H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 I S.C.R.

A The question whether it was necessary for inputs to be used within the
factory premises where the manufacture as defined in Ru le 57 AB of final
products takes place for the purposes of availing of credit, came up before
a Bench of three Judges in the case of Ja;pee Rewu ·cement v. CCE (supra).
As in this case, in that case the input in question was explosives which were
used in quarrying limestone used in the manufacture of cement. The Court
B came to the conclusion on a consideration of the Rules which we have already
quoted, that sub-rule (I) of Rule 57A did not in any way specify that the
inputs have to be utilized within the factory premises. The Tribunal had
relied upon Rule 57F in coming to the conclusion that the inputs in respect
of which credit of duty was claimed must be those which were used in or
C brought in to the factory premises. In reversing the decision of the Tribunal
this Court observed that:-

"'The Tribunal, however, has not refen-ed to the provisions of Rule
571, the opening portion of which makes it clear that the said Rule
will be applicable notwithstanding anything contained in the other
D Rules. Accc;.irding to Rule 57J, when the Central Government by ..'
notification specified the inputs used in the manufacture of intennediate
products received by the manufacturer for use in or in relation to the
manufacture of final product, then all such products on which duty
has been paid credit will be allowed ............... .

E Explosives would fall under column (2) being a tariff item in Chapter
36; the intennediate product, namely, lime stone would fall under
column 3 being covered by Chapter 25; and the final product, namely,
cement would also fall under Chapter 25 and would fall under column
4. The reading of Rule 571 along with the aforesaid notification can
leave no manner of doubt that even in respect of inputs used in the
F
manufacture of intennediate product which product is then used for
the manufacture of a final product. The manufacturer would be allowed
credit on the duty paid in respect of the input. On the explosives a
duty had been paid and the appellants would be entitled to claim
credit because the explosives were used for the manufacture of the
G intennediate product, namely, lime stone which. in tum, was used for
the manufacture of cement".

The appeal of the manufacturer was accordingly allowed and it was
held that the MODY AT was allowable on the use of the explosives in the
manufacture of cement irrespective of the fact that the explosives were used
H directly in the mines and never entered the facto~ of the manufacturer of
+
VIKRAM CEMENTl'. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [RUMA PAL, J] 473
. cement. A
'
In 2000 the MODY AT Rules were replaced by the CENY AT Rules by
the Central Excise (2nd Amendment) Rules 2000. Basically there was a re-
affangement of the earlier rules which in substance remained the same. Thus
Rule 57 AA defined inputs as :-
B
"input" means all goods, except high speed diesel oil and motor
spirit, commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation to the
manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and
\
whether contained in the final product or not and includes accessories
of the final products cleared along with the final products, goods
used as paint, or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of c
electricity or stem used for manufacture offinal products or for any
other purpose within the factory of production and also includes
lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils and coolants. {Emphasis supplied}

Analyzed, it is clear that sub-rule (d) of Rule 57AA has merely reframed
--'-"
Rule 57B to include all the ingredients of inputs while at the same time
D
,\
' broadening the base not only by referring to "all goods" but also by using the
word "includes".

Rule 57 AC provides for the conditions for allowing CENYAT credit in
respect of inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer. Sub-rule (I) of E
Rule 57AC which was relied on in J.K. Udaipur Udyog to differ from the
conclusion in Jaypee Rewa Cement reads:-

"Rule 57AC. Conditions for allowing CENVAT credit.- (I) The
( \ CENY AT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on
receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer". F
Rule 57 J of the MODY AT Rules was deleted. This led to controversy
and on 29th of August, 2000, a clarification was issued by the Central Board
of Excise and Customs (CBEC) inter alia to the effect that:-

''It has been represented that when the inputs are sent directly to a job G
worker, the erstwhile MODY AT credit scheme permitted availment
of MODY AT credit under Rule 57J read with the Notification No.214/
86-C.E. as amended. Several associations have requested that similar
provision may be made in the CENYAT scheme. This request has
been acceded to and Rule 57AB(J) has been amended suitably for
.H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R.

A this purpose. The amended provisions of Rule 57AB (I) apply to
goods received in the factory on or after Ist April, 2000. Credit is
therefore permissible in respect of intermediate goods received from
a job worker on or after 1.4.2000. Credit shall, of course, be allowed
only ifthe intermediate products received by the manufacturer of the
said final products are accompanied by any of the documents as
B specified under rule 57 AE( I) evidencing the payment of duty on
such inputs of capital goods".

(Emphasis supplied}

Consequently, with the intention of re-introducing the benefit granted
C earlier under Rule 57J, Rule 57 AB was introduced under the heading
"CENVAT credit". The material extracts of Rule 57 AB reads as follows:-

57AB( I) A manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed
to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENV AT credit) of.-
D
,.-
(i) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said First
Schedule), leviable under the Act;
(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(iii) Xxx xxx xxx xxx
E
(iv) Xxx xxx xxx xxx
(v) Xxx xxx xxx xxx
paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory on or after
the first day of March, 200 I, including. the said duties paid on any
F inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of intermediate
products, by a job worker availing the benefit of exemption specified
in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Finance (Department of Revenue) No.214/86. Central Excise, dated
the 25th March, 1986, published in the Gazette of India vide number
G GSR 547(E), dated the 25th March. 1986. and received by the
manufacturer for use in or in re/at ton to the manufacture of final
products, on or after the first day of March, 2001." {Emphasis
supplied}

Rule 57AB effectively duplicates the substance of Rule 57J (I) and (2)
H and deals with a situation where inputs are received by a job worker for
4 75

.'
VIKRAM CEMENTI' COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. INOORE [RUMA PAL .I J

production of intermediate goods which are used in the manufacture of a A
final product.

In this background, the question arose in the case of Commissioner of
Central Eicise, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog limited. (supra) whether the
explosives used for blasting purposes in the mines and which had not been
used in the factory premises for production or in relation to the manufacture B
of cement could qualify for CENVAT credit.

-\ The Court answered the question in the negative and in paragraph 9 of
the judgment as reported said:-

"The scheme for MODVA T and CENV AT Credits being different c
and in view of the definition of"input" given in sub-rule (d) of Rule
57 AA of the Rules and the omission of a Rule similar to Rule 57 J,
the ratio of Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) can have no application
here".

Three reasons were given by the Court for holding that credit could be
D
.. taken only on inputs received ill the factory of the manufacturer of the final
product. First, the Court held that the definition of input given in sub-rule (d)
of Rule 57 AA was "entirely different from the manner in which the said
word had been expounded in the explanation to Rule 57 A of the MODY AT
Rules". We cannot agree with this reading of the Section. As we have said E
there was only a re-arrangement of the several provisions of Rule 578 in
Rule 57AA. Rule 57AA is in fact more broadbased than Rule 578.

Second. the Court procee.ded on the basis that under the CENV AT
scheme there was no provision similar to Rule 57 J of the MODY AT scheme.
As we have seen, Rule 57J was replaced in substance by Rule 57A8. This F
provision was overlooked.

The third reason given by the Court in J.K. Udaipur Udyog for holding
that the CENVA T Scheme was different from the MODVAT Scheme was
Rule 57 AC( I). However, that Rule is limited to inputs received in the factory
G
of the manufacturer and does not impinge on Rule 57A8 at all.

The schemes of MODVAT and CENV AT Credit are not therefore
-4 different and we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Court in .I K
Uduipur Udyug that the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) wou Id have
no application to CENVAT Rules. H
476 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A In our opinion the doubt expressed by the referring Bench about the
correctness of the decision in CCE v. JK. Udaipur Udyog limited (supra)
was well founded. Having regard to the fact that the CENVAT Rules in effect
substitute the MODV AT Rules. the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would
continue to apply. The decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur
B v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog limited (supra) holding to the contrary is, in our
opinion, not good law. The reference is answered accordingly. All the appeals
and special leave petitions will now be listed for being disposed of in the
light of this judgment.
B.B.B. The reference is answered.
The Civil Appeals and Special Leave
Petitions may be listed for disposed
in the light of this judgment.

,