VIKRAM CEMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of civil appeals/special leave petition, question of admissibility of credit of the duty paid on "inputs" namely, explosives, lubricating oils and welding electrodes as also the question of admissibility of credit on "capital goods" namely, limestone crusher, mining equipment etc. under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2000, 2001 and 2002 arise for determination.

(2.) Since common questions of law and fact arise for determination, the above civil appeals are clubbed together. For the sake of convenience, the facts in civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2005 are mentioned herein below.

(3.) Three show-cause notices dated 26.8.2000, 10. 2.2003 and 29.1.2003 were issued by the department to the assessee proposing to disallow the credit on aforestated items on the ground that they were used for extraction of limestone in the mines and not within the factory in which cement (final product) was manufactured by the assessee. The assessee replied to each of the above three show-cause notices by which it submitted that the substantive definition of "input" as per clause (d) of Rule 57aa of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rule 2 (f) of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2001 and Rule 2 (g) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2002 was in pari-materia and was not different from the definition of "input" under erstwhile rules 57a and 57b of central Excise Rules, 1944. According to the assessee, there was no difference between the MODVAT scheme and the cenvat scheme as far as the substantive definition of "input" was concerned. According to the assessee, the CENVAT scheme was more broad-based as compared to the earlier MODVAT scheme.