Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The India Cements Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy on 6 November, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/1115/03 & E/CO/4/04
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.459/2003-(SCN) TRY dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
The India Cements Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 6.11.2009 Date of decision : 6.11.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri M.N.Bharathi, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are three issues involved in this case. The first one relates to denial of credit to parts of surface miners which are used in the captive mines of the appellants. He states that credit is admissible in respect of such parts used in the captive mines in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore [2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)].
2) The second issue relates to denial of credit on high temperature CCTVs used in the Kiln. He states that such CCTVs have been allowed credit in the following decisions of the Tribunal :-
1) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs CCE Bhopal 2006 (200) ELT 71
2) Jaypee Bela Plant Vs CCE Raipur, 2003 (161) ELT 422
3) The third issue relates to restriction of 75% of the additional duty of customs paid on imported goods received before 1.3.1997. He states that in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs Raj Cement [2003 (159) ELT 302], it has been held that date of receipt of goods is relevant, whereas in the present case, since the impugned goods were received on 23.3.1996 well before 1.3.1997, the appellants are eligible for 100% of the credit of the additional duty of customs without restricting it to 75%.
4) Heard ld. DR.
5) We find that all the three issues are covered by the cited decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and the Tribunal under which the credit denied in respect of the three different items have been allowed. Following the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order in so far it relates to the above three categories of impugned goods and allow the appeal. The cross-objection stands disposed off.
(dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K.DAS) (Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 1 4