2018 (12) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f. April 2012 to June 2012. Violation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was alleged. Resultantly, a show cause notice No.1282 dated 11.04.2013 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of allegedly wrongly availed cenvat credit. The imposition of interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty was simultaneously proposed. The entire proposal was confirmed by the order of Additional Commissioner bearing No. 145 dated 30th September, 2013. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the order under challenge bearing No.559 dated 13th June, 2018 has upheld the order and rejected the appeal. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal 2. I have heard M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all goods except light diesel oil, High Speed diesel oil and motor spirit commonly known as petrol including lubricating oils, greases cutting oils coolants accessories etc. of the final products. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that the controversy is of a very narrow compass that is as to whether the lubricants /greases used in the dumpers, which are used by the appellant in their Mines for the transport of extracted ores are the eligible inputs or not. For this purpose, the definition of input as mentioned in Rule 2 (k) of CCR is relevant, the same reads as follows:- "input" means - "(k) (i) all goods used in the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot charged separately from the customer. 6. This definition makes abundantly clear that whatever machinery in which input is used has to be a capital goods. Thus, the only criteria for admissibility of cenvat credit on input are that same must be used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final product. In the present case, there is no dispute that the dumpers in question are being used for transporting the extracted ore in the Mines of the appellant. Ore is an input of the appellant herein and the entire Mines is the place of manufacture. In the given circumstances, I am of the opinion that disputed goods are used in relation to the manufacture of final product of the appellant and accordingly, very well qualify aforesaid definition....