HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of the assessee itself being D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 75/2006 "Union of India V/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2008 225 ELT 183" decided on 9-8-2007 .

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish that judgment on the ground that in that case, the cement was used as a construction material to provide safety to the roof of the mining area, while in the present case, the cement has been used for constructing foundation for erecting plant and machinery. In our view, the distinction is hardly relevant, inasmuch as, the consideration taken into account in the said judgment dated 9-8-2007 is that the cement was used as a construction material, and is not eligible as input in taking Cenvat credit under Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2002, and in that case, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. Sales Tax Officer,1997 91 ELT 34 so also few other judgments were considered, and it was found that the real question, which was required to be considered is whether the cement, which is used as building construction material, is eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 2 (g) of the Rules, and it was found to be not so eligible. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the distinction sought to be drawn.