Challenge to Denial of Cenvat Credit for Wind Mill Maintenance

The denial of Cenvat credit on services used for the Repair and Maintenance Service of wind mills located far from the factory was challenged. The appellant successfully argued that they did not sell any electricity generated from the wind mill, rendering them unaffected by Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The Tribunal considered the previous decision in the appellant's case and ruled in their favor, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit on services used for Repair and Maintenance Service of wind mills located far away from the factory.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the denial of Cenvat credit on services used for the Repair and Maintenance Service of wind mills situated far from the factory. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Tribunal decision in their own case dated 16.10.2017. However, the Revenue pointed out that amendments to the Cenvat Credit Rules had been made since that decision, specifically mentioning the insertion of an explanation under Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 through Notification No. 6/2015-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2015. This explanation clarified the treatment of exempted goods or final products, including nonexcisable goods cleared for a consideration from the factory. The Revenue contended that due to these legal changes, the previous decision in the appellant's case could not be followed.

The appellant's counsel strongly emphasized that they had never sold any electricity generated from the wind mill to anyone, thereby asserting that they were not affected by Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The Member (Technical) considered the Revenue's submission and noted that the explanation introduced by Notification No. 6/2015- CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015 would be relevant if the appellant had sold the electricity generated from the wind mill. As the appellant's counsel confirmed that no electricity was sold, the facts of the case remained unchanged, and the previous order in the appellant's case was deemed a valid precedent.

Based on the Tribunal's decision in the appellant's own case under similar circumstances, where it was established that no electricity generated from the wind mill was sold, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---