TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent assessees, the credit is not available. The abovesaid view of the Supreme Court was reiterated in a subsequent decision in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 179 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the question of fact as to whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory or in an integrated mine of the assessee or in other mines is the core issue to be decided. From a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has not gone into the issue whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory of the assessee or in an integrated mine of the assessee or in other mines. That being the core issue, there being no finding on the said as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant/assessee availed Modvat credit on certain capital goods/inputs which were used in its captive mines. A show cause notice dated 26.3.01 for the period between March, 2000 and October, 2000 was issued on the appellant, by the Superintendent of Central Excise, seeking to deny credit to the tune of ₹ 1,52,986/= on capital goods listed in Annexure B to the show cause notice, as the same were used in the mines outside the factory. The appellant/assessee filed its reply dated 26.3.01. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty vide order dated 23.8.01. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred appeals before the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought into the factory premises at any point. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance upon two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Vikram Cement Ltd. - Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC)) and (2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)) and submitted that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A of the Rules nowhere states that the inputs have to be utilised within the factory premises and, therefore, the denial of credit by the Tribunal has to be set aside, so long as the same is used by the appellant for its own use. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the documents available in the record as also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities for decision only on the above issue. 8. The abovesaid view of the Supreme Court was reiterated in a subsequent decision in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. - Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai (2010 (257) ELT 321 (SC)). 9. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the question of fact as to whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory or in an integrated mine of the assessee or in other mines is the core issue to be decided. 11. From a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has not gone into the issue whether the capital goods were utilised in the own factory of the assessee or in an integrated mine of the assessee or in other mines. That bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
