TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, in which reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered by Three Judges in the case of Vikram Cements v. Commissioner of Central Excise, dated 18.1.2006 upon reference made by Two Judges Bench, reported in (2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC)). 2. The following substantial questions of law were sought to be raised for consideration: "(i) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in holding that CENVAT credit is admissible on the capital goods which were not specified in the Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? (being contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2005 (187) ELT 145 SC. [Appeal (Civil) No. 1197/2005 dated 24/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. In our opinion the doubt expressed by the referring Bench about the correctness of the decision in CCE v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) was well founded. Having regard to the fact that the Cenvat Rules in effect substitute the Modvat Rules, the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would continue to apply. The decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) holding to the contrary is, in our opinion, not good law. The reference is answered accordingly. All the appeals and special leave petitions will now be listed for being disposed of in the light of this judgment." 4. Thus following the said judgment, the Madras High Court, in atleast four cases of the Assessee has decided that Cenvat Credit in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s appeals. The relevant paragraphs of the High Court's order reported in 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.) are reproduced as under: "7. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials placed before this Court . 8. Even though Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee's own case reported in AIT-2011-358-HC = 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.) (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact, herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Commissioner that the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referring to the decision reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression "components/parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal filed by the Revenue. 15. Accordingly, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T, 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decisions of this Court in C.M.A.No.3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012 and C.M.A. No. 1265 of 2014, dated 10.7.2014, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2011 is closed." 7. Respectfully following the three Hon'ble High Court decisions in the appellant's own case cited supra, and also maintaining this Tribunal's order in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bh....