9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, the short question which arises for consideration is whether the explosives used by the assessee for mining limestone at off-factory sites during July to September, 2000 were eligible for input duty credit. During the said period input stood defined under Clause (d) of Rule 57AA as under :- Input - means all goods, except high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above issue stands already covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal s decisions in CCE v. Birla Corporation Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 215] and CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2002 (147) E.L.T. 877]. Ld. DR cites a contra decision vide Final Order No. A/1401/2003-NB(SM), dated 5-8-2003 in Appeal No. E/451/2003-NB(SM) [Manglam Cement Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 177 (T)]. 3. I have giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory of production of final product, for mining limestone for the purpose of manufacture of cement (final product) was not eligible for input duty credit. The crux of the decision in Manglam Cement is that Jayee Rewa Cement is not applicable. This view is certainly in conflict with the decision taken in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (supra) and Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra). I am of the view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
