2015 (9) TMI 1391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....twhile Rule 57U (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty under erstwhile Rule 57U(6) read with 173Q(bb) of CER. On appeal by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dt.17.9.2003 set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the department reviewed the Order-in-Appeal and preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in their Final Order No.1436/2009 dt.15.10.2009 held that lubricating oil used in the mines are eligible for credit as they are captive mines of the assessee. Accordingly, Revenues appeal was dismissed. The Revenue filed a C.M.A. before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no evidence to support that they have obtained any lease for the mines for which credit has been rightly denied. They have not produced any proof that the mined products are supplied to other cement companies but the products are exclusively used by the respondent. He relied on the following case laws :- (i) Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC) (ii) Madras Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2010 (257) ELT 321 (SC) 5. Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee submitted the paper book containing Government Orders (G.O.s) issued by the Govt of Tamil Nadu dt.8.5.91, 17.3.95, 16.11.98 and also submits copy of lease agreement entered into between the Govt of Tamil Nadu and the respondent and submits that as per the Tamil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regards the first issue, whether appellant had any captive mining lease during the relevant period April'96 to March 2000, appellants submitted copies of relevant G.Os. issued by the Govt of Tamil Nadu and on perusal of GO Ms.No.203 dt.8.5.1991, GO Ms.No.70 Dt. 17.3.95 and GO Ms.765 dt.16.11.98. I find the TN Govt had granted mining lease in favour of the respondent for the period of 30 years and 20 years respectively subject to fulfilment of various conditions as set out in the G.O itself and also subject to the payment of royalty and other rents etc. In terms of above G.O's, appellants have executed lease deed dated 17.6.95 and 5.3.92. On perusal of the lease deed, I find that the rights, liabilities, restrictions of use of mines ....