9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AI [ 2010 (7) TMI 179 - SC ORDER ] has held that As regards the Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital, goods, if the mines are captive mines so that they constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods will be available to the assessee. Further, the Tribunal in the assesee s own case MAIHAR CEMENT UNIT NO. 2 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . All the appeals have been filed by the Department against the Order-in-Original 23-33/2016 dated 06/12/2016. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement. It has two units which have separate Central Excise registrations known as unit I and II. Both are owned by a common owner M/s Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. 3. The Original Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies of different assesses, and it is found that the said goods were being used in the lime stone mines outside the factory of the assessee, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the concerned assessee under the appropriate Modvat/Cenvat Rules. In order to get a clear finding on the issue, all the matters are remanded to the respective original autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the mines are captive mines of Maihar Cement Unit No. 2 or not? The lower authorities have held against the appellant on the sole ground that both the units are separately registered with the Central Excise authorities. The above criteria adopted by the lower authorities will not advance Revenue s inasmuch as registration of different units under Central Excise law cannot be held relevant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Tribunal in the case of Maihar Cement vide its Final Order No. 433/2008, dated 3-7-2008 has allowed the credit in respect of cement items. The subsequent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Cement reported as 2010 (257) ELT 321 (SC) also supports the appellant s case inasmuch as the mines in question are not supplying to factory of other assesses. 10. By following our e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
