Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 999 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on plant and machinery as capital goods installed in the Co-generation power plant which is outside the approved factory premises and without bringing the same in their factory and without using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods? Held that: - Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, requires a person such as the assessee-engaged in production or manufacture or any processes of production or manufacture of specified goods (sugar and molasses in the present case), has to compulsorily obtain registration. Certain notifications have also been issued under Rule 9 providing for conditions, safeguards, procedure etc. pertaining to grant of registration - Clearly if a person is manufacturing two different items at two different premises, he is required to obtain separate registrations in respect of such separate process involving separate premises. In the instant case, it has been found by the Tribunal that the bagasse produced at the premises engaged in manufacture of sugar and molasses, was consumed in entirety at the other premises being the co-generation power plant. Also, the Tribunal found that the electricity produced at the co-generation power plant at the other premises was used at the sugar and molasses plant and it was only in the off season that some part of electricity may have been sold to the State Electricity Department which as a fact was not found verified on record. In view of the provision of Section 2(e) of the Act read with Rule 2(t) of the Rules and as self classified by the CBEC circular/instructions, the activities of the assessee at the two separate premises in question were clearly interlinked. 'Factory' under Section 2(e) of the Act, means any premises where part of manufacturing processes connected with the production of goods is carried on. Therefore, once it had been found that electricity produced at one premise of the assessee had been used to manufacture of sugar and molasses at the other premise and also that the bagasse manufactured at the other premises of the assessee (sugar and molasses plant) had been used to generate electricity at the premise of the assessee generating electricity, it appears the two premises together would constitute the 'factory' of the assessee under Section 2(e) of the Act. While, there is no dispute that CENVAT credit had arisen to the assessee on the capital goods used to generate electricity, it is to be seen whether the said capital goods had been received in the 'factory of manufacture of final product' for the purpose of Rule 3(1), as above. Here, it is noted that the phrase 'factory of manufacture of final product' has not been defined under the Rules. By virtue of Rule 3(t) of the Rules read with Section 2(e) of the Act, the term 'factory' used in Rule 3(1) has to be given the same meaning as has been given to that word under the Act - the Tribunal has made no error in allowing the assessee to utilize CENVAT credit on capital goods against the duty payment on sugar and molasses. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
|