TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted from mines. In order to extract limestone from the mines, Capital Goods are required. Normally, the mines are situated away from the cement factories. In certain cases they are contiguous, and connected by private/public road to the cement factory. The common issue before us is whether the capital goods used in the mines are entitled for CENVAT Credit under the relevant Rules. 3. The names of the Advocates who represented the respective parties are given above. Shri Ganesh Havanur, learned SDR represented the Revenue. 4. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing for M/s. Ultra Tech Cemco. Ltd., adduced the following arguments; (i) If it is accepted that the area where the mines are situated would come within the ambit of the definition of 'Factory' as per Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, then the parties have a strong case. (ii) The decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)] is distinguishable on the account of the fact that the facts in the present case are diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CBEC's Manual of supplementary instructions, wherein there is provision for single registration in respect of separate premises under certain circumstances. Separate premises where the premises are actually part of the same factory, (where processes are inter-linked), but are segregated by public road, canal or railway-line. The fact that the two premises are part of the same factory will be decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise based on certain factors. (vii) The learned Advocate further submitted that in the present case, the mines are to be treated as a single factory for the following reasons; (a) Limestone is mined and crushed in the mines. The limestone is the basic raw material for the manufacture of cement; (b) The mines and factory are situated adjacent to each other, and on a continuous stretch of land; (c) There is no public road, canal, railway line etc. separate the factory from the mines; (d) The mines are owned by the appellants; (e) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It is also seen that the product obtained in the mines is limestone which is classifiable under chapter heading 2505.00 of CETA and the same is an exempted product and does not require registration with CE department. 7. The learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal. Shri M.S. Srinivasa, learned advocate said that the mines are adjacent to the factory and they should be treated as part of factory under Section 2(e) of the CE Act, 1944. 8. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The learned Advocates in all these cases, before us want to make a point that the mines are part of the factory as per the definition in Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cemco. Ltd., the mines are connected to the factory by a private road. In the other two cases, the mining area is contiguous. The parties have also submitted that the mining area also has been registered by the Central Excise department along with the registration of the factory. The instructions in the departmental manual has also been relied on, where more than one premises have been given a single registration. We have considered all the submissions very carefully. In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government and the Cement factories have only taken them on lease for extraction of lime stone. Hence, in our view the Capital goods/inputs used in the mines are not entitled for CENVAT Credit, as mines cannot come within the definition of 'Factory' as per Section 2(e) of Central Excise Act, 1944, even if they are contiguous and given Central Excise Registration along with the factory. In other words, mines cannot be considered as part of the Factory. 10. The following other issue have been raised in the Appeal of M/s. UltraTech CemCo. Ltd. Even though these points were not argued before us during the hearing, as written submissions were filed in this case, the same are considered and decided on merits. Restriction of Credit to 75% 11. The Appellant submitted that the capital goods classified under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff were received into the factory during the year 1996 itself. But the provisions of Rule 57Q(3), which restricted the credit to 75% were effective only from 1-3-1997. Hence, for the Capital Goods received prior to 1-3-97, the restriction cannot be applied. He relied on the following case laws. (a) CCE v. Raj Ceme....