DIAMOND CEMENTS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these 11 appeals, filed by M/s. Diamond Cements, the issue involved is regarding admissibility of Modvat Credit.

(2.) Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that in 8 appeals Modvat Credit has been denied to them in respect of Lubricants on the ground that the lubricant has been used in dumpers, D.G. sets, aerial ropeway which are not used in the factory of production but for transportation of goods either in the mines or transportation of goods from mines to the factory, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jay Pee Rewa Cement v. CCE, 2001 (77) ECC 457 (SC : 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC). The learned Advocate, further, submitted that at the appellants' unit at Narsingarh, Damoh, the only activity undertaken is clinkerisation and cement grinding is done at Imlai; that the findings for disallowing the Modvat Credit on Lubricants is factually incorrect; that no D.G. sets are located outside the factory in which the lubricants and greases are used; that all the D.G. sets are located within the approved factory premises; that, further, the D.G. sets are not used for transportation of goods in the mines or for transportation of goods from mines to the factory since these are used for the operation of the kiln; that therefore, the Modvat Credit cannot be denied to them.

(3.) Countering the arguments Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned DR, submitted that the Appellants themselves have mentioned in paragraph 2.5 of their memorandum of appeal that "all lubricants were not used in transportation of goods in mines or from mines or in D.G. sets or in ropeway. It is submitted that a substantial part of lubricants are used in other processing plants and machinery like mills, crushers, kiln, etc." The learned D.R. contended that it is, thus, evident that all the lubricants were not used within the factory premises.