MUKAND LTD. AND ORS. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five appeals are directed against the Order -in -original No. 01/2006(Commr) dt. 3/2/2006.

(2.) The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as under:

(3.) Ld . SDR on the other hand would draw our attention to the provisions of Rule 57Q and submit that the said rule is very clear and unambiguous. It is her submission that the capital goods should be used in the factory of the manufacturer of final products. It is her submission that KFIL manufactured pig iron from iron ore, ML manufactured alloys and non -alloys billets, brooms etc. from the said pig iron. and KSL manufactured steel rolled products. It is her submission that all the three entities in this case are big limited companies and cannot be considered as one factory premises. It is her submission that all the three companies took separate Central Excise licenses for the purpose of discharge of duty liability. It is her submission that if the capital goods on which credit has been availed by ML is not found in the factory premises of ML, the confirmation of the demand is correct. It is her submission that the capital goods on which the credit has been availed by ML is exclusively used for the production activity of KFIL and KSL. It is her submission that the case laws which have been relied upon by the ld. Counsel are totally distinguishable on facts as in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) there were no three different entities but there was only one entity. It is her submission that in the case of Diamond Cements (supra) also, two units were of the same assessee. She would submit that the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as the mines were captive consumption mines and not of other units. She would submit that the decision of the co -ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, 2004 (173) ELT 145 (Tri. Del.) would apply in this case.