Remand granted for verifying electricity sale at Wind Mill, emphasizing evidence examination.

The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further verification on whether the electricity generated at the Wind Mill was sold or not. The judgment emphasized the importance of thoroughly examining evidence before denying credit on common input services and highlighted the need to verify factual aspects like the sale of electricity to make informed decisions. The remand to the Adjudicating Authority aimed to address these issues and ensure a fair assessment based on the presented evidence.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) - AHMEDABAD regarding availing cenvat credit on various services for manufacturing activities and electricity generation.
- Dispute over the demand of Cenvat Credit on electricity sold and repair services for Wind Mill.
- Argument regarding denial of credit on common input services used for maintenance of Wind Mill and manufacturing activity.
- Allegation of selling electricity generated in Wind Mill.
- Appeal challenging the rejection of appeal by Ld Commissioner (Appeals) and seeking justification for denying credit on common input services.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the OIA passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) - AHMEDABAD, challenging the demand of Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid on various services used for manufacturing activities and electricity generation. The appellant availed cenvat credit on services like 'Banking and Financial Services', 'Business Support Services', and 'Chartered Accountant Service'. The dispute arose when a demand was made under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for selling electricity to Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd (GETCO) and for availing Cenvat Credit on 'Repair and maintenance Services' for their Wind Mill situated away from the factory. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal related to the admissibility of credit on 'Repair and Maintenance Services' for the Wind Mill but confirmed the demand for common input services. The appellant argued that if credit on repair services is allowed, there is no justification for denying credit on other common input services used for manufacturing and Wind Mill maintenance.

The Ld Advocate for the appellant contended that the electricity generated in the Wind Mill was not sold but used entirely in the factory premises. The Ld AR for the Revenue supported the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals). Upon examination, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) found merit in the appellant's argument and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verification. The judgment highlighted that if credit on repair and maintenance services is allowed, denying credit on other common input services without proper examination is unjustified. The appellant's evidence, including electricity bills, supporting the non-sale of electricity generated in the Wind Mill, was not adequately considered. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further verification on whether the electricity generated at the Wind Mill was sold or not.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence before denying credit on common input services and highlighted the importance of verifying factual aspects like the sale of electricity to make informed decisions. The remand to the Adjudicating Authority aimed to address these issues and ensure a fair assessment based on the presented evidence.

---