M/S. Reliance Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/194/2007 (Application No. E/Extn/16132/2014)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Supreme Court decision relied on by the adjudicating authority has been held not to be good law by a subsequent Supreme Court decision, the denial of cenvat credit grounded on the earlier decision cannot stand, and the matter is to be remanded for fresh decision in the light of the later decision. Cenvat credit on capital goods is available where the captive mines or units used are treated as one integrated unit together with the concerned manufacturing unit, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the later decision; the question whether this integration exists on the facts must be decided afresh by the adjudicating authority after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO-22/COMMR/2006 dated 30.10.2006, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, Rajkot)
M/s. Reliance Industries Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri J.C. Patel, Shri V.K. Jain & Ms. S. Balani, Advocates For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, A.R.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 02.02.2015
ORDER No. A/10107 / 2015 Dated 02.02.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter 25,27,28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue involved in this appeal is admissibility of the cenvat credit on the capital goods used in Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) installation at the anchorage in the sea. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Adjudicating authority denied the credit relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited - 2004 (171) ELT 289 (SC), which was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Honble Supreme Court.
3. We find that the Honble Supreme Court, subsequently in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, Indore 2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC) held that the decision of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) is contrary and not a good law. It is seen that the Honble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE Indore - 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC), held that if the mines are captively used, so that constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned unit, modvat/ cenvat credit on capital goods would be available. In that case, the Honble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the respective original adjudicating authorities for decision only on that issue.
4. In view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (supra), we set-aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (supra). Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. The application for extension for stay order is dismissed as infructuous.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free