Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 247 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - input service - capital goods - Furnace Oil / fuel used in the generation of electricity, part of which cleared to other unit and residential colony - denial on the ground that the part of electricity was used by the appellant’s DTY division and also on the ground that the electricity to this extent was used in the residential quarters - period 2004-05 to 2007-08 - HELD THAT:- Even though both POY unit and DTY unit are two division but both belongs to one single entity i.e. M/s Modern Syntex (I) Ltd., moreover both the units are located in the same premises, merely because both the units have separate central excise registration, it cannot be treated two separate entities, therefore, the cenvat credit on this ground cannot be denied. However the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] which was subsequently referred to the Larger Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA VERSUS GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS COMPANY LTD. [2012 (12) TMI 437 - SUPREME COURT]. Both sides have not brought on record regarding the outcome of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court as on date. The matter needs to be re-considered on the basis of the outcome of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA VERSUS GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS COMPANY LTD. [2012 (12) TMI 437 - SUPREME COURT]. We also find that the appellant has made out a strong Prima facie case on limitation which also needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|