ADITYA CEMENT Vs. CCE, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the assessee. By a faxed letter dated 21.1.2002, they have requested for disposal of this case in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Jaypee Rewa Cements (2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC) :, 2001 (98) ECR 193 (SC)). Apparently, the party has waived personal hearing. The respondent is represented by ld. JDR Sh. V.K. Verma. Examined the records and heard the DR. In the aforesaid letter, the assessee has claimed that the issue involved in the present case stands squarely covered in their favour by the apex Court's decision. However, Ld. JDR submits that the issue cannot be said to be so covered. He points out that, in that case, the question was whether explosives used by M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement for mining limestone at mines located outside their cement factory were eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944. He submits that, in the present case, the issue is whether Prilled Ammonium Nitrate and Primex used by the appellants for the manufacture of explosives at their mines located outside the cement factory were eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A ibid After so attempting to distinguish the present case from Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra), the DR submits that the explosives which were manufactured out of Ammonium Nitrate and Primex by the appellants at their mines were final products which stood exempted from duty of excise under Notification No. 63/95 -CE, dated 16.3.1995 and, therefore, no Modvat credit was admissible in respect of the inputs by virtue of the provisions of Rule 57C(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I have to reject this argument, at the outset, inasmuch as the ground raised by the DR with reference to Rule 57C for denying Modvat credit on Ammonium Nitrate and Primex to the appellant was no ground for any of the authorities below, nor in the show -cause notice.