Aditya Cement Vs. C.C.E.

Aditya Cement vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 19, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44636

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/44636
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Das
Decided On: Jan 19, 2007
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aditya Cement

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)(116)ECC552

Excerpt

1. the appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dt.20.10.05.2. the issue involved in this case is whether the inputs and capital goods used in mines are entitled to avail cenvat credit. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 of central excise tariff act, 1985.they availed cenvat credit on explosives which are used in mines.3. ld. advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is already decided by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of vikram cement v. cce, indore reported at and 2006 (197) elt 145 (sc).4. heard ld. dr. he reiterated the findings of the commissioner (appeals).5. after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, i find that the case is covered by the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of vikram cement v. cce . i find that the commissioner (appeals) passed the order following the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cce, jaipur v. j.k. udaipur udyog ltd. . however, the hon'ble supreme court in the case of vikram cement held as under: the third reason given by the court in j.k. udaipur udyog for holding that the cenvat scheme was different from the modvat scheme was rule 57ac(1). however, that rule is limited to inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer and does not impinge on rule 57ab at all. the schemes of modvat and cenvat credit are not therefore, different and we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the court in j.k. udaipur udyog that the decision in jaypee rewa cement (supra) would have no application to cenvat rules. in our opinion the doubt expressed by the referring bench about the correctness of the decision in cce v. j.k. udaipur udyog ltd. (supra) was well founded. having regard to the fact that the cenvat rules in effect substitute the modvat rules, the decision in jaypee rewa cement would continue to apply. the decision in commissioner of central excise, jaipur v. j.k. udaipur.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dt.20.10.05.

2. The issue involved in this case is whether the inputs and capital goods used in mines are entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

They availed Cenvat credit on explosives which are used in mines.

3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is already decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported at and 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC).

4. Heard Ld. DR. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vikram Cement v. CCE . I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. . However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement held as under: The third reason given by the Court in J.K. Udaipur Udyog for holding that the Cenvat Scheme was different from the Modvat scheme was Rule 57AC(1). However, that Rule is limited to inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer and does not impinge on Rule 57AB at all.

The schemes of Modvat and Cenvat credit are not therefore, different and we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Court in J.K. Udaipur Udyog that the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) would have no application to Cenvat Rules. In our opinion the doubt expressed by the referring Bench about the correctness of the decision in CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (supra) was well founded.

Having regard to the fact that the Cenvat Rules in effect substitute the Modvat Rules, the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would continue to apply. The decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (supra) holding to the contrary is, in our opinion, not good law. The reference is answered accordingly. All the appeals and special leave petitions will now be listed for being disposed of in the light of this judgment.

6. In view of the above, the issue is no more res-integra. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Aditya Cement vs C.C.E. Same Subject Excise Same Judge P Das