Telangana High Court
WP/26613/2007 of M/s. The India Cements Ltd. Vs Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, on 27 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 26613 OF 2007 Dated : December 27, 2007 Between: M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Vishnupura, Wadapally, Nalgonda District Rep. by its Manager
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OFANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.26613 OF 2007
Dated : December 27, 2007
Between:
M/s. The India Cements Ltd.,Vishnupura, Wadapally, Nalgonda DistrictRep. by its Manager AccountsSri K.Varahala Raju Petitioner
AND
Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise,Miryalaguda Range, Church Road, Miryalaguda.
Respondent
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.26613 OF 2007
ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)
Seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dated 10.12.2007, issued by therespondent in Proceeding No.OC No. 1043/2007, asillegal, arbitrary and unjustified, the petitioner filed this writpetition.
The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and isan assessee on the rolls of the respondent, engaged inthe manufacture and sale of cement. It is averred that thepetitioner being a manufacturer of cement is entitled toCENVAT credit. In the process of manufacture of cement,the petitioner uses limestone as the principal raw material.It is submitted that in accordance with the provisions ofRule 57A of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, thepetitioner has availed the CENVAT credit on the inputs,but the Appellate Authority, while confirming the order ofthe Lower Authority has held that the petitioner is notentitled for Modvat Credit for the explosives used in themines, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal by itsorder dated 9.8.2000. Hence, the present writ petition.
When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it issubmitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that theissue involved in the instant writ petition is covered by thedecisions rendered in C.E.R.C. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2007dated 26.12.2007, whereby the R.Cs. were alreadyordered in favour of the assessee.
Consequently, the writ petition is closed in terms ofthe order passed in C.E.R.C. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2007
dated 26.12.2007. No order as to costs.
____________________T.MEENA KUMARI, J.
December 27, 2007MAS
____________G.ROHINI, J.