TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs; that a show cause notice dated 19-4-96, was issued to them for disallowing the Modvat credit (in appeal No. E/94/99) as the goods are not within the meaning given for "inputs" in Explanation to Rule 57A and that in respect of the goods detailed in serial Nos. 2 and 20 to 28 in the Annexure to the show cause notice, the credit had been availed of after the expiry of six months. He submitted that except in respect of goods at serial Nos. 2 and 20 to 28, the grounds for disallowing the Modvat credit is vague and have not been spelt out clearly and specifically; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. Assistant Custodian General of Evacuee Property, AIR 1980 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e inputs used in the processes for the manufacturing stream of the finished products can be taken to have been used "in the manufacture of the or in relation to the, manufacture of finished product". He concluded that in view of this decision, mining of limestone is a process in relation to the manufacture of cement and are thus eligible inputs. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 75 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86, is available to template, gauges, conveyors, etc., used in relation to the manufacture of locomotive as the ban imposed by Notification applies only to machinery, equipment rods, etc., use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inputs; that as these are capital goods, credit is not available as these have not been used in the factory of manufacture but in mines. She relied upon the decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, M.P., 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 6.1 We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The period involved in both the appeals is from June, 1995 to December, 1995. During this period Modvat credit of the duty paid on specified goods, described as "inputs" used in or in relation to the manufacture of specified goods, described as "final products" was available under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further the Modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer in his factory was available under Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-bridges used in the factory of the manufacture ; (d) ………" 7. The main submissions of the appellants is that the process of mining of limestone in mines is so integrally connected with the manufacture of cement, their final product, that all impugned goods have been used in or in relation to manufacture of goods and that as these goods are not used for processing or producing any goods or for bringing about any change in substance for the manufacture of final goods, these goods are not capital goods. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned Consultant. It is not in dispute that the goods involved are machinery, equipment and parts and accessories and are used in the mining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has held the use of electricity to lift water/raw materials as use of power in the manufacture of excisable goods. Thus the impugned goods are excluded from the purview of "inputs" as per Explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 8. Further, machinery, equipments, tools and appliances and parts and accessories thereof have been defined as "capital goods" in Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) of the Rules, 1944. The appellants, will, however, be not eligible to take Modvat credit under Rule 57Q also since these goods are not used in their factory and are used in mines outside and away from the factory. This was also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement case, supra, whe....