TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court analyzed how the Cenvat credit can be availed on inputs which have been sent to the job worker and ultimately used in the manufacture of final product - in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (2005 (1) TMI 306 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), the identical issue was before this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal has held that naphtha, as such or after being partially processed, sent to power plant and raw material used by the power plant for generation of electricity; said electricity is sent to the principal manufacturer. On such inputs sent to the job worker, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Similarly, in the case of pet coke which has been sent by the respondent to their sister unit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit on pet coke. Therefore the case was booked against the respondent and Cenvat credit was denied along with interest. Consequently, duty was demanded along with interest and penalty equivalent to the duty was imposed. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE [2006 197) ELT 97 (Tri-Del)] Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Cenvat credit. Against that order, Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR relied on the description of inputs as defined in Rule 2(k) of the CCR, 2004 to say that pet coke is not input for manufacturing of their final product i.e. cement and this pet coke has been used in generation of electricity outside the factory, therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 575 (Tri-Del)] 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. The short issue before me is that whether the respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit on pet coke which has been used in generation of electricity outside the factory and said electricity has been used by the respondent in manufacturing of their final product or not. I have gone through the case law relied upon by the learned AR in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the issue before the Honble Apex Court was that the electricity generated which has been sold outside the factory, whether the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit thereon or not. Said issue is not before me, as in the said case, admittedly electricity so generated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that electricity generated is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, within the factory. Therefore, to the extent of the clearance of excess electricity outside the factory to the joint ventures, vendors, grid etc. would not be admissible for CENVAT credit as such wheeled out electricity, cleared for a price, would not fall within the definition of input in Rule 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. This view is also expressed in para 9 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Solaris Chemtech Limited - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). Further, our view is supported by the observations of this Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. Commnr. of Central Excise, Indore - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
