https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35110 Cement used in mines for construction, repair, maintenance or filling gaps was treated as building material and not as an input used in relation to manufacture, so it did not satisfy the statutory test for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Rajasthan HC held that the Supreme Court ruling in Vikram Cement did not assist the assessee on the facts. The alternative argument that cement could be treated as capital goods was not examined because it had not been the basis of the case before the Tribunal. en-us Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35110 Cement used in mines for construction, repair, maintenance or filling gaps was treated as building material and not as an input used in relation to manufacture, so it did not satisfy the statutory test for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Rajasthan HC held that the Supreme Court ruling in Vikram Cement did not assist the assessee on the facts. The alternative argument that cement could be treated as capital goods was not examined because it had not been the basis of the case before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35110