Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
M/S Madras Cements Limited vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Trichy on 7 October, 2015 cites

M/S Vikram Cement vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Indore on 24 August, 2005

“12. The Supreme Court in Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2006 (194) ELT 3(SC) in paragraph 5 of the judgment, held that as regards MODVAT/CENVAT credit on capital goods used in mines which are captive mines so that they constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory. MODVAT/CENVAT credit on capital goods will be available to the assessee. On the other hand, if the mines are not captive mines but they supply to various other similar companies of different assessees, MODVAT/CENVAT credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the concerned assessee under the appropriate MODVAT/CENVAT rules. The Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the respective original authorities for decision on the said issue. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the stand taken by the assessee that the mining area was a part of the factory premises as per the ground plan and the Registration Certificate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

M/S Vikram Cement vs Cce, Indore on 24 July, 2009

After going through the show cause notice, we find that the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the assessee is correct. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there was no need to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) as on admitted facts when the principle laid down in Vikram Cement's case is applied, the assessee was not liable to pay any duty. The order of the CESTAT remitting the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) is thus, set aside allowing these appeals.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 124 - Full Document
1