TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der].- 1.1 These two appeals involve an identical issue and hence are being dealt with by a common order. 1.2 The Appeal No.E/191/2007 is against the order of the Commissioner No. 29/BVR/Commissioner/2006 dt.27.10.06, by which an amount of Rs.49,791/- was sought to be denied as credit and penalty of Rs 49,791/- was imposed. 1.3 The Appeal No.E/192/2007 is against the order of the Commissioner No. 28/BVR/Commissioner/2006 dt.27.10.06, by which an amount of Rs.1,29,783/- was sought to be denied as credit and penalty of Rs 1,29,784/- was imposed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: a) The appellant is a manufacturer of cement and they have their captiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture of cement and disallowed the credit. 4.1. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that their mines are a captive mines; the entire limestones mined are used only in their factory; the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner to treat the activities of crusher and conveyer system as part of the manufacturing activities shall hold good for the activities of transformer also and therefore the disallowance of credit is incorrect and the imposition of penalty is also not proper. 4.2 He relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Vikram Cement reported in 2006 (197) ELT 145 in support of his contention that when the mines cater exclusively to the factory, then the duty paid on the capital goods used i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC). Since the role of the transformer in the mines in the present case, is not relatable to the manufacturing of cement, the electricity used for the same cannot be treated as credit on input used in the electricity. 5.4 He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd , in support of his contention that for the eligibility of credit is linked to use of electricity for excisable activity. 5.5 He also relies on the decision of the Hon,ble High Court in case of Solalris Chemtech Ltd . 2007-(214)-135-SC-CX, to support his contention that the nature of use whether for excisable or other purposes is relevant for allowing credit. 6. I have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|