VIKRAM CEMENT Vs. COMMNR OF CENTRAL EXICSE INDORE
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 18,2006

VIKRAM CEMENT Appellant
VERSUS
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. DALMIA CEMENTS B LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-324] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. INDIA CEMENTS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-143] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA CEMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-358] [REFFERD TO]
MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-4-298] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF C. EX. AND SERVICE TAX VS. BIOCON LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2014-6-186] [REFERRED TO]
SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT [LAWS(CE)-2014-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS. CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
UPPER GANGES SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VS. MUKUND LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-312] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VS. MUKUND LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-498] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR-II VS. J.K. CEMENT WORKS [LAWS(CE)-2015-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMANI RIVER PELLETS LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S.T., BBSR-I [LAWS(CE)-2015-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS CEMENTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI UDYOG LTD VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2008-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR [LAWS(CE)-2007-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
ELLORA TIMES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT [LAWS(CE)-2008-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR [LAWS(CE)-2007-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR [LAWS(CE)-2009-6-55] [RELIED ON]
KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., BELGAUM [LAWS(CE)-2006-5-39] [FOLLOWED]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GUNTUR VS. CITY LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2011-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VS. BIOCON LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2011-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI CHAKRA CEMENTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GUNTUR [LAWS(CE)-2008-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
GOKAK MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM [LAWS(CE)-2006-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM-I [LAWS(CE)-2008-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM VS. VASAVADATTA CEMENT [LAWS(CE)-2008-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM [LAWS(CE)-2006-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
J.K. SUGAR LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2010-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR [LAWS(CE)-2012-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2012-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI SUZUKI LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS CEMENTS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD U P VS. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE MEERUT I [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. CITY LUBRICANTS (P) LTD. [LAWS(CB)-2011-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI T. ANJANEYULU, MEMBER (J) FINAL MAJORITY ORDER BY : MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (J) AND SHRI M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (T) ARVIND MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-III [LAWS(CE)-2006-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2006-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C EX VS. INDORAMA TEXTILES LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-156] [REFERRED]
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO LTD VS. COMMR OF C EX [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-230] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF C EX , BANGALORE VS. BHARATH FRITZ WERNER LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2007-9-96] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE VS. M/S MANGLAM CEMENT LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED VS. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-245] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. THIAGARAJAR MILLS (P) LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT)(REVISION PETITION) AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-1430] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-II VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-90] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The question whether the decision in Jaypee Rewa cement v. CCE, 2001 (133) ELT 3 SC would apply to the CENVAT Rules, 2000 framed under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (referred to as the 'act') is to be decided on a reference made in this case. A Bench of two Judges of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J. K. Udaipur udyog Ltd. , 2004 (171) ELT 289 SC, held that Jaypee Rewa Cement did not apply to the CENVAT Rules. The view was doubted in this case by a bench of co-ordinate strength which referred the following question to us :- "in the light of the provisions of the CENVAT Scheme vis-a-vis MODVAT Scheme reproduced hereinabove, we are of the view that the observations made in paragraph 9 of the decision of the Division Bench, quoted above, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J. K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. reported in 2004 (171) ELT 289 needs reconsideration. "
(2.)The reference was made in the factual context of the appellants availing of cenvat credit on explosives and other inputs used in quarrying limestone, which was in turn used for the manufacture of cement and clinkers, which are classifiable under Chapter 25. The limestone mines of the appellants are situated at some distance away from the factory premises of the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellants were not entitled to the credit availed of by the appellants and raised a demand for excise duty only on the explosives. The narrower question raised in this appeal, therefore, is whether the adjudicating authority was correct in denying the appellants the CENVAT credit on the inputs.
(3.)On the broader question, namely, whether there is a difference in substance between the MODVAT and the CENVAT Schemes, Modified Value Added Tax scheme (MODVAT) was introduced in 1986 granting credit of excise duties used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The scheme was contained in rules 57-A to 57-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (referred to as the 'rules'). We set out below the relevant extracts of these Rules :-"rule 57a - Applicability - (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The credit of specified duty under this section shall be allowed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products as well as on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not. Rule 57b. Eligibility of credit of duty on certain inputs - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57-A, the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the specified duty paid on the following (inputs) , used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not, namely :- (i) inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of production; (ii) paints; (iii) inputs used as fuel; (iv) inputs used for generation of electricity or steam, used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production; (v) packing materials and materials from which such packing materials are made provided the cost of such packing materials is included in the value of the final product; (vi) accessories of the final product cleared along with such final product, the value of which is included in the assessable value of the final product. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-rule, it is hereby clarified that the term 'inputs' refers only to such inputs as may be specified in a notification used under Rule 57-A". (Emphasis supplied)


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.