DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of hearing the appeal, the appellants are required to predeposit an amount of Rs. 2,49,727/ - taken by the appellants towards Cevant credit pertaining to the period October 2002 to March 2003. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had taken Cenvat credit on explosives used in their mines. This Cenvat credit was disallowed by the original authority and confirmed by the lower appellate authority by rejecting their appeal.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel Shri M.V. Raman submits that the case is covered in their favour by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement and Ors. v. CCE, MP and Ors. 2001 (46) RLT 491 (SC) : 2001 (98) ECR 193 (SC). He, therefore, submitted that they should be given complete waiver of predeposit as they have a strong prima facie case in their favour.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, learned SDR Shri B.L. Meena has argued that the Northern Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Cements Ltd. reported in 2004 (163) ELT 177 (Tri -Del.) has held that exported used in mines outside the factory are not entitled to credit in terms of definition of "inputs" under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which clearly indicated that the inputs are required to be used within the factory of production. He further, submitted that a similar view was also taken by the NRB in the case of Century Cement . In view of these two judgments, he submitted that appellants should be put to terms. Ld. SDR also submitted that the case law relied on by the Counsel in the matter of Jaypee Rewa Cement and Ors. v. CCE MP and Ors. 2001 (46) RLT 491 (SC) is of no help to the appellants as the cited judgment has been distinguished by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. 2004 (64) RLT 219 (SC) : 2004 (116) ECR 191 (SC), wherein it has been held that explosives used for blasting purposes in the mining area are outside the factory of production and are not eligible for Cenvat credit in terms of definition of "inputs" given in Sub -Rule (d) of Rule 57A and the provisions of Rule 57AC as the words "inputs" defined under Rule 57AA(d) is entirely different from the manner in which it has been expounded in Explanation to Rule 57A. He, further, submitted that the Apex Court has also held that the schemes of Modvat credit and Cenvat credit being different and because of omission of Rule 57J, the ratio of the judgment of Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) would have no application to the facts of the case.