9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise and Service Tax, Bolpur, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is a manufacturing unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SAIL') engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products classifiable under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The main raw materials viz. iron ore, manganese required for the manufacture of the final products are procured by the Appellant from Gua and Manoharpur mines, which are also part of the legal entity of SAIL. The abovementioned captive mines of SAIL were under the control of Raw Material Division for administrative convenience. However, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amounting to Rs. 17,76,34,847/- from the Appellant, along with interest and equivalent penalty. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated and the demands raised in the Notice were confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, along with interest and penalty, vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 issued on 24.09.2013. 3. The Appellant submits that both the mines as well as the manufacturing unit belongs to one legal entity i.e. SAIL, which is engaged in manufacture of Steel; the subject mines are set up primarily to serve as captive mines to manufacturing units of SAIL and thus bears an integral link to steel plants; SAIL is only responsible for overall management of mines and steel plants; the internal division is merely to fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported as Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Bolpur 2023 (12) TMI 1062- CESTAT Kolkata, wherein, on similar facts, it has been held by this Tribunal that the Appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of input services relating to captive mines. The present appeal covers the period 2006-07 to 2011-12 (up to June 2012), for the same unit. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: "7. We observe that the issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of input services relating to captive mines, which is distributed to the Appellant vide ISD invoices. We find that both the mines as well as the manufacturing unit belongs to one legal entity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istributed to the Appellant vide ISD invoices. Hence, we hold the demand of reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty confirmed vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2019, is not sustainable." 6. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the mines and the Appellant's manufacturing unit belongs to one legal entity, which is engaged in manufacture of dutiable goods. Therefore, we hold that the observation given by the Ld. Commissioner that distribution of credit by the mines is in contravention of Rule 7(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules is legally not tenable. Thus, we hold that the distribution of credit by captive mines as ISD is in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. In view of the above discussions, we set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
