2005 (7) TMI 104 - SC - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Credit - Capital goods - whether the duty paid on spares of ropeway used for the purpose of transporting the crushed limestone from the mines located 4.2 kms. away to the factory, is entitled to Modvat credit - Following decision of CCE, Chennai v. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. 2000 (10) TMI 122 - CEGAT, CHENNAI - assessee is held to be entitled to MODVAT Credit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Modvat credit on duty paid for spares of ropeway used for transporting crushed limestone.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the appeal to determine whether the duty paid on spares of a ropeway used for transporting crushed limestone from mines to a factory was entitled to Modvat credit. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) had disallowed the credit, stating that the ropeway did not qualify as material handling equipment within the factory premises. However, the Court noted that the crushed limestone was brought to the factory premises using the ropeway for transportation, similar to previous cases where Modvat credit was allowed.

In a previous case, the Tribunal had allowed Modvat credit following principles established in other judgments. The Commissioner of Central Excise had appealed against this decision but later withdrew the appeal based on departmental instructions. The Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the acceptance of the principles laid down in previous cases.

The appellant argued that several Tribunal decisions had followed the established principles, leading to a settled legal position. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in legal interpretation to avoid confusion and upheld that the Revenue could not take a different stand in this case after accepting the principles in previous decisions.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that Modvat credit was available to the appellant in the current case, similar to previous instances. The CEGAT's order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

In another related appeal, the judgment and order from a previous case were applied to allow Modvat credit, aligning with the decision made in a similar case involving M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. The Court granted special leave in additional appeals, and based on the precedent set in the aforementioned cases, allowed Modvat credit for the appellants in those cases as well, setting aside the CEGAT's orders.

Overall, the Supreme Court's judgments emphasized the importance of consistency in legal interpretation, particularly regarding Modvat credit entitlement, and upheld the principles established in previous cases to ensure clarity and uniformity in decision-making.