2017 (6) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The appeals have been preferred by the Assessee, i.e., Ramco Cements Limited (formerly described as "Madras Cements Limited"). 2.1. CMA No.1606 of 2017, has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order passed by the Tribunal, which is dated 10.09.2015. 2.2. In so far as CMA No.1278 of 2017 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the Assessee against the rectification order dated 22.12.2016, passed by the Tribunal. 2.3. The period in issue, with which, these appeals are concerned spans between April 1997 and May 1997. 3. The record shows that the Assessee had claimed MODVAT credit in respect of the goods noted hereunder qua, the period in issue, to the extent of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice of the Tribunal, it dismissed, as indicated above, the rectification application vide its order dated 22.12.2006. 4.3. It is, in these circumstances, that the Assessee has preferred the captioned appeals. 5. Mr.Rishikesh, who appears for the Assessee, makes the submission that in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in its own case, which relates to the goods in issue, i.e., steel wire, these appeals would have to be allowed. Learned counsel further says that even though, the rectification order passed by the Tribunal, is, pivoted on an erroneous understanding as to when limitation is to commence, that perhaps, would not come in the way of this Court, if, it, otherwise, is persuaded to hold that the Assessee ought ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as admitted that the goods are not in the nature of capital goods and these were used for construction of concrete structure and foundation on which the various heavy machineries in a cement plant was to be erected. On that basis, it is argued that the goods in question were captively used for the construction of the plant and had nothing to do with the mining which is accepted by the Department itself in the show cause notice. After going through the show cause notice, we find that the aforesaid contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee is correct. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there was no need to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) as on admitted facts when the principle laid down in Vikram Cement....