2006 (2) TMI 1 - SC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on capital goods allowed where mines are captive and integrated with a cement factory; denied if non-captive

VIKRAM CEMENT Versus CCE, INDORE

SC held that where mines are captive and form an integrated unit with the cement factory, Cenvat/Modvat credit on capital goods is allowable to the ... Cenvat/Modvat Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- if the mines are captive mines so that they constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods will be available to the assessee. On the other hand, if the mines are not captive mines but they supply to various other cement companies of different assessees, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the concerned assessee under the appropriate Modvat/Cenvat Rules - Following decision of Vikram Cement v. CCE [2006 (1) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Eligibility of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in mines.In the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, the main issue revolved around the eligibility of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods utilized in mines. The Court clarified that for Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs like explosives and lubricating oils, the decision in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE was applicable, and thus, the appeals concerning credit on inputs were allowed based on this precedent. However, concerning Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods, the Court differentiated between captive mines forming an integrated unit with a cement factory and non-captive mines supplying to various cement companies. For the former, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods would be available, while for the latter, such credit would not be accessible under the relevant Modvat/Cenvat Rules. The Court remanded the matters to the original authorities for a decision solely on this specific issue.Additionally, the judgment included the disposal of several appeals with no order as to costs. Furthermore, specific appeals, such as C.A. No. 1154/2006 and C.A. No. 1159/2006, were granted special leave, and the parties being represented, were disposed of in line with the above order. The Court ensured that all parties were heard, and the appeals were concluded accordingly, with delays condoned where necessary.