TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2004 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (8) TMI 140 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in their own case, the Tribunal following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disposal. 2. The Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue fairly submits that the impugned order disposed of seven appeals, but they have filed eight appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority denied Cenvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 3 (S.C.), remanded the matter by Final Order No. 40064/2013 dated 20.02.14. We find the period of dispute is related to November, 1998 to December, 2001. We also notice that the Honble Supreme Court in the applicants own case, Madras Cements Vs. CCE, Chennai 2010 (257) ELT 321 (S.C.), remanded this matter on the identical issue to verify as to whether it is captive mines. 5. Respectfully f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
