2008 (5) TMI 193 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of credit of service tax paid on the insurance premium on the power generation plant - When the department has allowed the credit in respect of the GTA & business auxiliary services availed by the captive power plant & thereby treated the power plant as captive power plant and thus as part of the manufacturing unit prima facie there does not appear to be any justification for denying service tax credit of the tax on insurance premium paid on captive power generation plant stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of service tax credit on insurance premium for power generation plant.
2. Whether power plant is integral part of unit manufacturing aluminium.
3. Denial of service tax credit based on separate entity status of power plant.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax credit and penalty amounting to Rs. 71,97,202/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. The dispute arose when the Commissioner disallowed the service tax credit on the insurance premium for the power generation plant, arguing that the power plant is a separate entity from the aluminium manufacturing unit and hence the insurance premium cannot be considered an input service for the manufacturing process. Additionally, it was contended that since the power plant produces electricity, a non-excisable product, it cannot be classified as a manufacturer eligible for service tax credit. Furthermore, as the power plant was not registered as an input service distributor, the service tax credit taken could not be distributed to the aluminium unit.

The Appellant, through their counsel, argued that the power plant is an integral part of the aluminium manufacturing unit. They highlighted a previous order by the jurisdictional Commissioner allowing service tax credit for certain services availed by the power plant, indicating that the power plant was considered part of the manufacturing unit in that instance. The Departmental Representative, however, supported the Commissioner's decision and opposed the full waiver of pre-deposit and penalty.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the department had previously allowed service tax credit for certain services availed by the power plant, treating it as a captive power plant and integral to the manufacturing unit. Consequently, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of the Appellant and ordered a full waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, staying its recovery. The Tribunal's decision was based on the inconsistency in treating the power plant as part of the manufacturing unit for certain services but denying the service tax credit on the insurance premium, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant had a valid case for the waiver.