Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5198-5201 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19769-19772 of 2004)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, WZB, Bombay in F.O. Nos. C.II/55 to 58/WZB/2004 in A. Nos. E/927, 1771, 1772 and 1773 of 1997 Bom.)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19769-19772 of 2004)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, WZB, Bombay in F.O. Nos. C.II/55 to 58/WZB/2004 in A. Nos. E/927, 1771, 1772 and 1773 of 1997 Bom.)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Respondent: Manikgarh Cement Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5198-5201 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19769-19772 of 2004)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, WZB, Bombay in F.O. Nos. C.II/55 to 58/WZB/2004 in A. Nos. E/927, 1771, 1772 and 1773 of 1997 Bom.)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19769-19772 of 2004)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, WZB, Bombay in F.O. Nos. C.II/55 to 58/WZB/2004 in A. Nos. E/927, 1771, 1772 and 1773 of 1997 Bom.)
Judges: B.P. SINGH & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 23, 2005
Appearances:
Mr. T. Mohd. Yousuf, Mr. Radha Krishnan, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. Raghunath Kapoor, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Indu Sharma, Mr. A.T. Rao, Advocates with them for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Grover and Mr. Nikilesh R. Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Grover and Mr. Nikilesh R. Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Act, 1944
MODVAT Credit – Applicability – Capital goods, like ropeways, connecting mines to factory. Held that the case is covered by judgment in Birla Corpn. Ltd. Ropeways would attract MODVAT Credit. (Para 3)
Central Excise Act, 1944
MODVAT Credit – Applicability – Capital goods, like ropeways, connecting mines to factory. Held that the case is covered by judgment in Birla Corpn. Ltd. Ropeways would attract MODVAT Credit. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise ( JT 2005 (6) SC 550) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Judgment
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. Special leave granted.
3. We are of the view that this matter is covered by our judgment in Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise1, so far as MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods is concerned, such as ropeways, which connect the mines with the factory. We notice that there were some other disputes also regarding welding electrodes, oxygen and other gases, and lubricants etc. However, in the appeals the only question on which the judgment and order of CEGAT has been challenged is the admissibility of MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods, namely, ropeways.
4. We, therefore, allow these appeals in terms of the aforesaid judgment without expressing any opinion as to availability of MODVAT Credit on the other items which formed the subject matter of dispute before CEGAT, but the decision of CEGAT in relation thereto has not been challenged in these appeals.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
6. No orders as to costs.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. Special leave granted.
3. We are of the view that this matter is covered by our judgment in Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise1, so far as MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods is concerned, such as ropeways, which connect the mines with the factory. We notice that there were some other disputes also regarding welding electrodes, oxygen and other gases, and lubricants etc. However, in the appeals the only question on which the judgment and order of CEGAT has been challenged is the admissibility of MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods, namely, ropeways.
4. We, therefore, allow these appeals in terms of the aforesaid judgment without expressing any opinion as to availability of MODVAT Credit on the other items which formed the subject matter of dispute before CEGAT, but the decision of CEGAT in relation thereto has not been challenged in these appeals.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
6. No orders as to costs.
