TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prising November and December, 1999. 2. The Appellant, M/s Madras Cements Ltd., Alathiyur, hereinafter referred to as `the Assessee' is the holder of Central Excise Registration No.1/Cement/97 and is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker coming within the ambit of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as `CETA, 1985'. 3. The Revenue's contention is that for the months of November and December, 1999, the Assessee had taken Modvat Credit on ineligible capital goods amounting to Rs.8,42,843/-. The further contention of the Revenue is that the Assessee was not entitled to such credit, inasmuch as, it had taken Modvat Credit on items which did not come within the purview of capital go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U. 5. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise on 4th June, 2003, and by his order No.22 of 2003, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs.4,31,749/- with regard to some of the items. The Assistant Commissioner held that, inasmuch as, the mandatory requirement stipulated in serial no.5 of the Table to Rule 57Q had not been complied with, he was not inclined to allow Modvat Credit in respect of the goods listed in serial nos.32 to 43 of the annexure to the notice. An appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was rejected on 16th October, 2003, upon holding that the items in question were not capital goods and were not, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [(2004) 7 SCC 344] had been referred. The Three-Judge Bench went on to hold that the Schemes of the Modvat and Cenvat were not different and that the conclusion of the Court in the J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.'s case (supra) that the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement's case (supra) would have no application to the case was not accepted on the ground that the Cenvat Rules only reflected the Modvat Rules where the Rules had simply been re-arranged. Mr. Ganguli submitted that, inasmuch as, the items sought to be excluded by the Assistant Commissioner were components and accessories used in the mining process for manufacture of the final product, and were covered by Sub-headi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory for the manufacture of the final product. Accordingly, an item not satisfying the said condition could not be brought within the scope of "capital goods" by any interpretive process, whereby claim for Cenvat Credit on the capital goods in question could be entertained. Mr. Banerjee submitted that since the said decision, as also the decision in the case of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.'s case (supra), were available at the relevant time, the impugned decision arrived at by the High Court could not be assailed on account of the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench on the reference made with regard to the views expressed in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.'s case (supra). 10. Mr. Banerjee urged that the impugned judgment of the Tribun....