ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. Heard Shri V.J. Sankaram, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, learned SDR for the Revenue in the matter.
E/61 & 62/2005 :
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Original authorities orders disallowing the CENVAT/Modvat Credit in respect of the items used in mines. The appellants have challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants submitted that the inputs were used in respect of machinery intended for blasting the limestone which were used in the manufacture of cement, in mines of within the precincts of the factory of the appellants. Hence the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. is not applicable. In our view the mines are not registered under the Central Excise Act. Even if they are adjacent to the factory, we cannot say that they are within the precincts of the factory. In our view, the Apex Court decision in the case of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of these appeals. The Orders-in-Appeal are legal and proper. Hence we do not want to interfere the same. CENVAT/Modvat credit is not admissible for the goods used in the mining area. These two appeals are dismissed.
E/63-66/2005 :
3. In all these cases, the issue is one and same. The appellants defaulted in payment of Central Excise duty on the due date. Therefore the adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The details of the amount defaulted, penalties imposed, etc. are shown in the following Tabular columns :
S. No. Appeal No. Amount Delay of pay- Penalty
defaulted ment in days amount
(in Rs.) (approx.) (in Rs.)
1. E/63/2005 2,33,96,877/- 90 days 2,50,000/-
2. E/64/2005 1,48,22,945/- 44 days 1,50,000/-
3. E/65/2005 1,90,44,088/- 90 days 2,00,000/-
4. E/66/2005 2,06,64,085/- 68 days 2,00,000/-
The appellants pleaded before the Adjudicating authority that they are BIFR Company and hence leniency has to be shown. After going through the records of the case, we find that the Orders of the Original authority are legal and proper. The penalties imposed are also reasonable as the penalty amounts are approximately 10% of the defaulted amounts. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the Orders-in-Original. Therefore the appeals are rejected.
4. All these 6 (six) appeals are dismissed in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the Court on 1-9-2005)