TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., DR, for the Respondent. ORDER These appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 6-1-2015 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur wherein Cenvat credit taken by the appellant on rock belts under the head capital goods has been denied. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Lead, Zinc and other concentrates, falling unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f present dispute before this Tribunal. 3. Ms. Sukriti Das, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that rock bolts are in the nature of fixtures, which falls under Clause (iv) of the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. She also refers to the adjudication order dated 1-8-2012, wherein the ld. Additional Commissioner of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 121 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. Per contra, Shri M.R. Sharma the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 6. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records. 7. I find from the available records that the Adjudicating Authority himself vide his order dated 21-11-2012 has held that the disputed goods are to be considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods will be available to the assessee; on the contrary, if the mines are not captive, and meant for supply of mined goods to various other cement companies of different assessees, Cenvat benefits should not be available. It is an admitted fact on record that the mines where the disputed goods have been used is the captive mine of the appellant, solely dedicated for the purpose of the appellant. ....