TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed against the appellant, along with interest and equivalent penalty has also been imposed. 2. Facts of the case are that appellant is holding Central Excise Registration for the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28, 29 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant is having a sister concern situated as M/s Bilag Industries (100% EOU), Plot No.143, 2nd Phase, GIDC, Vapi and a corporate office. During the course of an audit of the records of the appellant by the officers of the jurisdictional Central Excise, Customs Service Tax Commissionerate, Daman in March, 08 May, 08, it was observed that appellant had a captive power plant, located in its factory premises. The said noticee had used cenvatable inputs viz., furnace oil to generate electricity and also to produce steam. A part of this electricity and steam was supplied to its sister concern viz., M/s Bilag Industries P. Ltd (100% EOU), situated outside its factory premises. Further, it was also noticed that appellant had not reversed proportionate CENVAT Credit attributable to the furnace oil used in the production of electricity which had been supplied to its said sister concern and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Corporation Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE - 2010 (249) ELT 370 (Tri-Kolkata) and Larger Bench decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai-II - 2013 (287) ELT 102 (Tri-Mum) have been wrongly decided while interpreting the functions of offices within the factory premises. Though these decisions have held differently, but still the issue has not attained finality as Kolkata High Court has admitted appeal of the assessee in the case law of MCC PTA India Corporation Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner (supra) on the same issue. That the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd Vs CCE - 2009 (240) ELT 0641 (SC) is no more a binding precedent in view of the reference made to larger bench in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd, Uttar Pradesh Vs CCE, Meerut-I, (2010) 14 SCC = 2010 (260) ELT 0321 (S.C.) doubting the ratio in Maruti Suzuki Ltd judgment. Ld.Advocate also contested that the demand is predominantly time barred due to the fact that conflicting views were expressed by Courts on this issue during the relevant period. 4. Dr. Jeetesh Nagori (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir case because the electricity is not sold to the sister concern which was a fact in the case before Apex Court when deciding the case of M/s Maruti Suzuki Ltd (Supra). In the present proceedings there is no evidence on record that electricity is sold by the clinker unit to the grinding unit. It is further observed that this distinction was recently brought to the notice of Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CCE., Chennai I vs M/s SRF [2013 (298)ELT 521 (Mad.)] where the following observations were made by Madras High Court in Para 17 and 18 : 17. The Learned Counsel for the assessee distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III (2009) 9 SCC 193 = 2009(240)ELT 641 (SC) on the ground that the issue in the said judgment relates to the entitlement of credit on eligible inputs utilized in generation of electricity to the extent to which excess electricity cleared at the contractual rates in favour of sister units, vendors, joint ventures etc., which was sold at price. However, in the case of hand, electricity was wheeled out only in favour of sister units and as such, there was no element of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer of the final products who has sent the input or partially processed inputs outside his factory to a job-worker may, by an order, which shall be valid for a financial year, in respect of removal of such input or partially processed input, and subject to such conditions as he may impose in the interest of revenue including the manner in which duty, if leviable, is to be paid, allow final products to be cleared from the premises of the job-worker. 13. From the above provisions of Cenvat Credit Rue 2004 it is evident that Cenvat Credit of inputs will be admissible to an assessee when the inputs are sent to a job worker and after undertaking the required manufacturing processes the final products can also be cleared on payment of duty from the premises of the job worker subject to imposition of certain conditions. In the procedures prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, therefore, provisions exist to allow the credit of inputs sent to a job worker when such inputs are used outside the factory premises of the manufacturer taking cenvat credit, however subject to som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
