TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Judgment per : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ (CAV)]. - At the stage of admission, we have heard out all these appeals as similar questions of law are involved. 2. The first 7 appeals are at the instance of the assessee and are directed against order dated June 17, 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ( the Tribunal for short) in Appeal Nos. E/438, 439/2007 E/2171-2174 and 2905 of 2006 and Tax Appeal Nos. 1295 and 1264 of 2011 are also at the instance of the assessee and are directed against order dated February 24, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/619 and 620 of 2010, by which the appeals preferred by the appellant were dismissed. 3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present Appeals. 4. For the purpose of convenience, facts are narrated from the Tax Appeal No. 376 of 2011. 5. The case made out by the appellant can be summed up thus : 5.1 The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant has, inter alia, two divisions. The Textile Division is known as M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills, which is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, processed cott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f June, 2004 to September, 2004 being proportionate credit on furnace oil used in the generation of electricity, partly supplied to the Plastic Division. The appellant, vide its letters dated June 29, 2004, July 31, 2004, August 31, 2004, September 30, 2004 and October 5, 2004, brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise the above fact that the said reversal was under protest as contended by it. 5.9 Subsequently, the appellant filed claim of refund for Rs. 18,43,853/- with the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rural Division, Kalol on September 23, 2004, claiming refund of excise duty/re-credit of the proportionate credit reversed on the furnace oil used in the generation of electricity and supplied to its Plastic Division during the period from January, 2004 to June, 2004. 5.10 The appellant made further claim of refund of Rs. 7,01,902/- with the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rural Division on October 28, 2004, claiming refund of central excise duty/re-credit of proportionate credit reversed on furnace oil used in the generation of electricity and supplied to its Plastic Division during the period from July, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not entitled to credit of duty paid on inputs used in the generation of electricity to the extent supplied to the other unit of the appellant by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III, reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). According to Mr. Narasimhan, the learned Tribunal totally misread the aforesaid judgment. Mr. Narasimhan contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant did not sell the electricity to an outsider for price and that the credit of duty paid on input was sought to be denied to the extent used in the generation of electricity supplied to the appellant s own unit and utilized in the manufacture of final product. According to Mr. Narashimhan, the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that both the units are, in substance, common factory and electricity so supplied to the Plastic Division is used within the factory of production and thus, denial of credit was ex facie erroneous. Mr. Narashimhan further contended that the learned Tribunal below erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) was based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption). They are not entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent of the excess electricity cleared at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors, etc., which is sold at a price. (Emphasis supplied by us). 11. Mr. Narasimhan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in this connection, strenuously contended before us that the factory premises of the unit of the assessee and that of its Plastic Division being situated in the same compound bounded by a common boundary wall, the electricity supplied to the Plastic Division should be treated to have been supplied not to a different entity but within its own factory. He further contends that merely because the Plastic Division is separately registered under the Central Registration Rules, such fact will not make it a different factory. In this connection, he relied upon the definition of the factory given in the Central Excise Act, which is as follows : (e) factory means any premises, including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
