The India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

The India Cements Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 06, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941925

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/941925
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 06, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No.E/1115 of 2003 & E/CO/4 of 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The India Cements Ltd.

Advocate Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate. Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Excerpt

per dr.chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. shri m.n.bharathi, ld. advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are three issues involved in this case. the first one relates to denial of credit to parts of surface miners which are used in the captive mines of the appellants. he states that credit is admissible in respect of such parts used in the captive mines in view of the decision of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of vikram cement vs cce indore [2006 (197) elt 145 (sc)]. 2) the second issue relates to denial of credit on high temperature cctvs used in the kiln. he states that such cctvs have been allowed credit in the following decisions of the tribunal :- 1) associated cement companies ltd. vs cce bhopal 2006 (200) elt 71 2) jaypee bela plant vs cce raipur, 2003 (161) elt 422 3) the third issue relates to restriction of 75% of the additional duty of customs paid on imported goods received before 1.3.1997. he states that in the case of cce jaipur vs raj cement [2003 (159) elt 302], it has been held that date of receipt of goods is relevant, whereas in the present case, since the impugned goods were received on 23.3.1996 well before 1.3.1997, the appellants are eligible for 100% of the credit of the additional duty of customs without restricting it to 75%. 4) heard ld. dr. 5) we find that all the three issues are covered by the cited decisions of the hon’ble supreme court and the tribunal under which the credit denied in respect of the three different items have been allowed. following the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order in so far it relates to the above three categories of impugned goods and allow the appeal. the cross-objection stands disposed off.

Full Judgment

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard both sides. Shri M.N.Bharathi, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are three issues involved in this case. The first one relates to denial of credit to parts of surface miners which are used in the captive mines of the appellants. He states that credit is admissible in respect of such parts used in the captive mines in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore

[2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)].

2) The second issue relates to denial of credit on high temperature CCTVs used in the Kiln. He states that such CCTVs have been allowed credit in the following decisions of the Tribunal :-

1) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs CCE Bhopal 2006 (200) ELT 71

2) Jaypee Bela Plant Vs CCE Raipur, 2003 (161) ELT 422

3) The third issue relates to restriction of 75% of the additional duty of customs paid on imported goods received before 1.3.1997. He states that in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs Raj Cement [2003 (159) ELT 302], it has been held that date of receipt of goods is relevant, whereas in the present case, since the impugned goods were received on 23.3.1996 well before 1.3.1997, the appellants are eligible for 100% of the credit of the additional duty of customs without restricting it to 75%.

4) Heard ld. DR.

5) We find that all the three issues are covered by the cited decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal under which the credit denied in respect of the three different items have been allowed. Following the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order in so far it relates to the above three categories of impugned goods and allow the appeal. The cross-objection stands disposed off.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties The India Cements Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &...