9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the decision in Vikram Cement case (2006 (2) TMI 1 - Supreme court). - there is no finding as to whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory of the assessee or in an integrated mine of the assessee or in other mines, this Court, without going into the other questions of law as raised by the appellant, is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Original Authority for reconsideration. - Decided in favour of assessee. - C.M.A. NO. 3692 OF 2014 And M.P. NOS. 1 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. C.Saravanan For the Respondent : Mr. E.Vijay Anand JUDGMENT R.SUDHAKAR, J. Aggrieved by the orders passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent of Central Excise, seeking to deny credit to the tune of ₹ 40,271/= and ₹ 2,31,974/=. Vide orders dated dated 28.8.01 and 22.7.03 the authority disallowed modvat credit availed by the appellant. 3. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant/assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide orders dated 9.1.04 and 13.1.04 rejected the appeals on the ground that Notification No.25/1996-CE (NT) dated 31.8.96 was not retrospective and, therefore, the amended notification did not entail the appellant to the benefit of modvat credit. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, on conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the decision of the Apex Court in Vikram Cement Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC) and 2006 (197 ELT 145 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that if the capital goods are used by the assessee for their own use in their captive mines, be it inside the factory premises or outside the factory premises, they are entitled for modvat credit. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record and also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant. 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on either side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts narrated in the case before us that the item in question were classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.31 and they were parts of materials conveying equipments falling under Chapter Heading 84.28. Apart from that, there were goods falling under Chapter Heading No.84.74 for the period between 23.07.1996 and 31.08.1996. The dispute herein related to goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.74. As is evident from the reading of the amended Rule 57Q(1)(d) under Notification No.14/96-CE dated 23.7.1996, the provision reads as follows: (d) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against items (a) to (c) above. Going by the liberal meaning given to Clause (d) in Rule 57Q that the position prior to 23.07.1996 Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) dated 31.08.1996 is answered in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Revenue. 9. The 2nd issue that has been urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is whether components, spares and accessories used as capital goods in the mines would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. 10. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Department by placing reliance on on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaypee Rawa Cements Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC)), to state that the benefit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules was not available for the goods in question. However, on a perusal of the said decision, this Court finds that only in relation to one of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent assessees, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the concerned assessee under the appropriate Modvat/Cenvat Rules. The matters are remanded to the respective original authorities for decision only on the above issue. 13. The abovesaid view of the Supreme Court was reiterated in a subsequent decision in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. - Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai (2010 (257) ELT 321 (SC)). 14. This Court, in the earlier batch of appeals, viz., C.M.A. Nos.3691, 3693, 3695 and 3696 of 2014, pertaining to the very same assessee, found that the Tribunal has not gone into the issue whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory of the assessee or in an integrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
