Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd on 4 August, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/60 67/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1 7/2003 TRY (ADK) dated 10.01.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
_______________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the : No
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental Authorities? ______________________________________________________
CCE, Trichy : Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. : Respondents
Appearance Shri P. Arul, Supdt. (AR), for the appellant Shri. R. Parthasarathy, Consultant, for the respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 04.08.2014 Date of Decision: 04.08.2014 FINAL ORDER No. 40461-40468 / 2014 Per: P.K. Das, Revenue filed these appeals against a common order and therefore all are taken up together for disposal.
2. The Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue fairly submits that the impugned order disposed of seven appeals, but they have filed eight appeals.
3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority denied Cenvat credit on inputs namely explosives, ammonium nitrate and detonators etc., used in the mines outside the factory premises. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders and allowed the appeals filed by the respondents.
4. The Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the mines are situated 40 kms away from the factory. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. 2004 (171) ELT 289 (S.C.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2004 (163) ELT 177 (Tri.-Del.). The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in their own case, the Tribunal following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore -2006 (194) ELT 3 (S.C.), remanded the matter by Final Order No. 40064/2013 dated 20.02.14. We find the period of dispute is related to November, 1998 to December, 2001. We also notice that the Honble Supreme Court in the applicants own case, Madras Cements Vs. CCE, Chennai 2010 (257) ELT 321 (S.C.), remanded this matter on the identical issue to verify as to whether it is captive mines.
5. Respectfully following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, in the applicants own case, we remand this matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh in the light of the decision of Vikram Cement Ltd. (supra) and their own case. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
2