M/S. The India Cements Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem
- CitationAppeal No.168/2006-CE(SLM), dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Exci
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where capital goods are used in a mine that is captive to the manufacturing unit, the mine forms an integral part of that unit, and capital goods credit on such goods cannot be denied on the ground that the mine is situated away from the factory. Cenvat credit claimed on goods not received at the appellant's premises is not allowable where the adjudicating authority has examined the matter and given reasons for rejecting the claim, and those reasons are not displaced on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.168/2006-CE(SLM), dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem ]
M/s. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri J. SHANKAR RAMAN, [No vakalat on file] Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 18-05-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.40538 / 2015
On behalf of the learned counsel on record Shri J. Shankar Raman, submits that Supreme Court has already settled the matter of capital goods credit when used in the captive mine although that is far away from the factory as reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T.145 S.C in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore.
2. Submission above is correct, if the mines are captive in nature thatconstitutes integral part of the manufacturing Unit itself. In the present case, the captive nature of the mine is not in dispute. Therefore, the capital goods credit denied to the appellant does not sustain. Appellant gets relief on this count. So far as the Cenvat credit on the goods not received is concerned, the authority appears to have examined the matter and the reasoning given in para 8.5 of the order appeals. Therefore, the appeal on this count fails.
3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed granting capital goods credit on the capital goods.
4. In view of the substantial relief granted as above there shall not be penalty nor interest on the unsustained part of the demand. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 18-05-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 18.05.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing
Fair Order Typing 18.05.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 19/05/2015
4 E/00967/2006
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