2025 (11) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of service tax credit unwarranted where mines and manufacturer are one legal entity; ISD distribution valid under Rule 7(b)

Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Varanasi Versus M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.

CESTAT held that recovery of service tax credit was not warranted because the mines and manufacturing unit formed one legal entity and distribution of ... Recovery of amount of credit of service tax availed - two mines which received the Input services are neither registered with the Department as captive mines of the party nor are those offices of the Noticess Unit - bauxite is non-excisable - HELD THAT:- It is found that the similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in appellant’s own case [2024 (7) TMI 1720 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein it was held that 'the mines and the manufacturing unit belong to one legal entity, which is engaged in the manufacture of dutiable goods viz. Aluminium products. Therefore, we hold that the distribution of credit by the mines, being ISD, is in terms with the provisions of Rule 7(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the distribution of credit by the appellant as an ISD is in accordance with the provisions of law and thus the CENVAT Credit has rightly been distributed by the appellant.' Reliance placed by the revenue in their appeal on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Limited [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] is totally misplaced. In the decision of Maruti, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the input credit availed in case of a captive power station needs to be reversed to the extent it is used in generation of the electricity that is wheeled out. This decision of Apex Court has been followed in the decision in the appellant own case of 2012 - It is not concerned with such a case were part of the electricity generated is being wheeled out or part production of the captive mines is sold to outside agency. In the present case the entire produce of captive mines is supplied to the appellant and used by them in production of the goods cleared on payment of duty. Further it is also noted that the scheme of CENVAT Credit in respect of the input services do not provide that credit can be availed only in respect of the services which are received in the factory of production. In the present case the services though received in captive mines are directly or indirectly used in the production of the finished goods cleared on payment of Central Excise duty. There are no merits in the appeals filed by the revenue - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether service tax paid on input services received at captive mines located outside the factory premises qualifies as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for a manufacturer of dutiable final products. 2. Whether captive mines which supply raw material to a manufacturing unit constitute an 'office' or part of the manufacturing unit such that they may act as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) under Rule 2(m) and distribute Cenvat credit to the manufacturing unit under Rule 7. 3. Whether the non-excisability (exempt or non-dutiable status) of an intermediate product (bauxite) mined at captive mines precludes availment of Cenvat credit of service tax on services used in mining when the ultimate final product (aluminium) is dutiable. 4. Whether earlier decisions relied upon by Revenue (including Maruti Suzuki and certain tribunal and High Court decisions) are applicable or distinguishable on the facts, and whether judicial precedent of higher forums and this Tribunal's own decisions are binding on subordinate adjudicating authorities. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Input services received at captive mines outside factory premises qualify as 'input service' (Rule 2(l)) Legal framework: Definition of 'input service' in Rule 2(l) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - (i) services used by a service provider for providing an output service; (ii) services used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, with an inclusive clause listing specific services and activities. Precedent Treatment: Reliance placed on Supreme Court authority interpreting 'in relation to manufacture' to include operations integrally connected with manufacture (Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works and Standard Fire Works); larger bench CESTAT decisions expanding 'used in relation to manufacture' (Union Carbide) and Supreme Court decisions allowing credit for inputs/services used in mines (Vikram Cement and subsequent authorities). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that the mean-clause of Rule 2(l) focuses on use by the manufacturer and is not location-specific; the place where the service is received is immaterial. The inclusive clause and the language 'directly or indirectly' and 'in or in relation to' are expansive and cover services integrally connected to production even if occurring at a different physical location. Processes or operations without which manufacture is impossible or commercially inexpedient fall within 'in relation to manufacture'. Given bauxite is the basic raw material for aluminium, services at captive mines are integrally connected to manufacture at the plant and thus qualify as input services. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - input services used at captive mines supplying raw material for dutiable final products are covered by Rule 2(l) and eligible for Cenvat credit; location of receipt is immaterial. Obiter - general observations on the broad semantic reach of 'in relation to' and examples from authorities. Conclusion: Service tax paid on input services used at captive mines located outside the factory premises qualifies as 'input service' for the manufacturer and is eligible for Cenvat credit, subject to compliance with other procedural rules. Issue 2: Captive mines as 'office' / ISD and distribution of credit under Rules 2(m) and 7 Legal framework: Rule 2(m) defines 'input service distributor' as an office of the manufacturer/producer which receives invoices under Service Tax Rules and issues invoices/challans for distribution of service tax credit; Rule 7 sets out manner of distribution. Precedent Treatment: Tribunal relied on its own and other tribunal decisions holding that offices or branch units of the same legal entity, including captive units, can function as ISDs and distribute credit; decisions permitting credit distribution where services are used in relation to manufacture (e.g., Nalco, CESTAT Kolkata) and recognizing ISD mechanics. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined documentary evidence (mining leases, CST and ISD registrations, annual returns to mining authorities) to conclude the mines are captive, financially dependent on the manufacturing unit, and that Renukoot plant is declared as additional place of business. Where mines form part of the same legal entity and supply the entire produce to the manufacturing unit, they qualify as offices/branch units and can lawfully distribute credit as ISDs. The Rules do not require receipt of input service in the factory; any office of the manufacturer that receives compliant invoices may distribute credit per Rule 7. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - captive mines that are part of the same legal entity and function as offices/branch units may act as ISDs and distribute input service credit to the manufacturing unit under Rules 2(m) and 7; the procedural compliance for ISD distribution suffices even if services were received outside factory premises. Obiter - comments on administrative convenience, trial balance entries, and balance-sheet aggregation not precluding captive status. Conclusion: The mines qualify as offices/branch units capable of being ISDs; distribution of Cenvat credit by such captive mines to the manufacturing unit is in accordance with Rules 2(m) and 7 and lawful where documentary and factual matrix support captive status and invoice compliance. Issue 3: Non-excisability of bauxite does not bar credit when ultimate product is dutiable Legal framework: Principle that availment of credit is governed by whether service/input is used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final product; precedents addressing intermediate exempt/non-dutiable products. Precedent Treatment: Reliance on authority (Mardia Steel; SAIL / apex confirmations) that credit on inputs/capital goods used in manufacture of intermediate or non-excisable products cannot be denied where integrated and ultimately used in dutiable final production; Supreme Court decisions in Vikram Cement allowing credit for inputs/services in mines when used for dutiable final products. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguishes cases like Maruti Suzuki (concerned with wheeling out of electricity) from the present facts where entire produce of captive mines is used by the manufacturer in production of dutiable goods and nothing is wheeled out or sold externally. It holds that the non-excisable status of an intermediate product (bauxite) is not decisive; what matters is nexus and integral connection to manufacture of the dutiable final product (aluminium). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-excisability of an intermediate/raw material at a stage does not preclude availment of Cenvat credit on services used in producing that material where the material is used in manufacture of a dutiable final product and the nexus/integral connection exists. Obiter - analysis distinguishing wheeled-out supplies and cases where intermediate production is sold externally. Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that bauxite is non-excisable is unsustainable where bauxite is captive and wholly used in manufacture of dutiable final products; credit remains admissible. Issue 4: Applicability of precedent relied on by Revenue and binding force of Tribunal decisions Legal framework: Doctrine of judicial discipline and binding effect of higher or coordinate tribunal decisions on subordinate authorities; relevance of Supreme Court pronouncements and subsequent overrulings / larger bench decisions. Precedent Treatment: Tribunal invoked prior decisions including Supreme Court rulings (Vikram Cement and subsequent affirmations) and its own coordinate bench decisions (Steel Authority of India Ltd., Usha Martin, and prior Final Orders in the appellant's own matters) as determinative. Revenue relied on Maruti Suzuki and other tribunal/High Court decisions but these were found distinguishable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that its earlier decisions on identical issues, and binding Supreme Court authority, have settled the question in favour of manufacturers availing credit for services used in captive mines. Distinctions were drawn where facts differ (e.g., wheeling out of power or external sales). The Tribunal applied the principle that subordinate authorities should follow the ratio of higher/coordinate tribunal and Supreme Court decisions unless set aside by a competent court. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where facts and legal questions are identical, Tribunal/ Supreme Court precedent binds and leads to acceptance of Cenvat credit for input services used at captive mines; distinguishing factual scenarios (e.g., wheeling out or external sale) may lead to different outcomes. Obiter - comments on estoppel in revenue matters and administrative registrations (ISD/CST) not being impugned. Conclusion: The revenue's reliance on distinguishable authorities is insufficient; prevailing Supreme Court and Tribunal jurisprudence control and support the allowance of Cenvat credit in the facts before the Tribunal. Operative Conclusion The Tribunal holds that (a) services received at captive mines supplying bauxite to the manufacturing unit qualify as 'input service' under Rule 2(l); (b) captive mines that are part of the same legal entity may function as ISDs under Rule 2(m) and distribute credit under Rule 7; (c) the non-excisability of the intermediate product (bauxite) does not bar credit where the material is wholly used in producing a dutiable final product; and (d) demands for recovery of Cenvat credit, interest and penalty on these grounds are unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals by Revenue are dismissed and the impugned demands are set aside.