2015 (10) TMI 1645 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed, case remanded for reconsideration in line with Vikram Cement judgment. Cenvat credit clarified for SBM installation. Stay extension application dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in line with the Vikram Cement judgment. The ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- In the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, Indore - [2006 (1) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the decision of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited (2004 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is contrary and not a good law. It is seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE Indore, held that if the mines are captively used, so that constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned unit, modvat/ cenvat credit on capital goods would be available. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the respective original adjudicating authorities for decision only on that issue. - Following this decision, Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Admissibility of cenvat credit on capital goods used in Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) installation at the anchorage in the sea.Analysis:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, sought cenvat credit on capital goods used in SBM installation. The Adjudicating authority denied the credit based on a previous Supreme Court decision. However, it was argued that this decision was overruled by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, had held the earlier decision contrary and not good law. The Supreme Court further clarified that if mines are captively used as one integrated unit with the concerned unit, cenvat credit on capital goods would be available. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in line with the Vikram Cement judgment. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the directive for proper opportunity of hearing. An application for extension of the stay order was dismissed as infructuous.