2006 (8) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of law has been framed :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the tribunal under appeal can be justified in disallowing the Modvat credit/Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods used by the assessee i.e. Captive mines in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikram Cement cases? The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. In addition thereto a penalty was also imposed in terms and Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 1-2-2005 held that the appellant was not entitled to avail Modvat credit on capital goods/inputs used at captive mines. Appeal by the assessee against the above order was rejected by the Tribunal an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uties paid on such capital goods. Later on in a reference made to Larger Bench in M/s Vikram Cement in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2006 (2) SCC 351, it was held by the Apex Court that the view taken in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. about dis-allowability of Modvat credit on duty paid on inputs and capital goods used at captive mines was erroneous and in that case the inputs used at mines site were hel....