VIKRAM CEMENT versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

VIKRAM CEMENT versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

The correctness of the Division Bench's interpretation in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.—that Modvat and Cenvat schemes have distinct definitions of 'input' and require user within factory premises—is in question and requires reconsideration by a larger bench.

Parties
Appellant: Vikram Cement; Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Order Referring to Larger Bench
Outcome
Referred to larger bench
Legal Topics
Cenvat Credit, Modvat Credit, Definition of Input, Capital Goods, Use Within Factory Premises
Central Excise Cenvat Credit Modvat Credit Definition of Input Capital Goods Use Within Factory Premises

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vikram Cement

Appellant

Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Order Referring to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of credit of duty paid on 'inputs' (explosives, lubricating oils, welding electrodes) and 'capital goods' (lime stone crusher, mining equipment) under Cenvat Credit Rules 2000, 2001, and 2002, versus Modvat scheme
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'input' and 'capital goods' and requirement of use within factory premises

Ratio Decidendi

The correctness of the Division Bench's interpretation in J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.—that Modvat and Cenvat schemes have distinct definitions of 'input' and require user within factory premises—is in question and requires reconsideration by a larger bench.

Court Disposition

Referred to larger bench

Orders

  • Papers to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for further directions