TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts leading to the passing of impugned order are that Steel Authority of India has a steel plant at Raurkela. That plant was having a captive power plant also. In 1999, the steel mills received a rotor for use in its captive power plant and took Modvat (Capital goods) Credit. Subsequently, in 2001, the power plant was spun off as a separate identity (subsidiary). In the subsidiary Steel authority continued to have 98% shareholding and remaining 2% went to NTPC. 3. On 17-9-2002, a show cause notice was issued by Central Excise authorities alleging that the separation of power plant into a new company amounted to sale of the rotor in question to a new entity and in view of this, the credit of about Rs. 2 crores taken on the rotor was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriate conclusion. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. V. Renugsagar Power Co. and others reported in 1988 (4) SCC 59 in support of the contention that this is an appropriate case for lifting of corporate veil. It is being explained that the case of Renusagar Co. was one where a dedicated power generation plant was set up to support the aluminium manufacturing activity of Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. (Hindalco). and after going into all the relevant aspects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that since the power plant was set up and run as a dedicated power plant for the manufacturing factory, the power generated by the power plant should be treated as power generated from Hindal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of manufacture of the final product. This is in view of (Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules) the provision that the item is "used in the factory of the manufacturer of final products". The contention of the learned SDR is that, after the separation of the power plant, the steel mill had submitted a separate ground for the factory from which the power plant was excluded. The contention is that it is clear from the revised ground plan that the rotor in question used in the power plant is not used in the factory of the manufacturer. 8. The learned SDR has also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. Shree Prithvi Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [2003 (58) RLT 6 (Tri.-Del.)] and Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Gha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit together with the concerned cement factory, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods will be available to the assessee. On the other hand, if the mines are not captive mines but they supply to various other cement companies of different assesses, Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the assessee under the appropriate Modvat/Cenvat Rules." 11. The above ruling was rendered in relation to capital goods used for transferring limestone from captive mines to cement factory. Similarly in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., ship unloader was used for transporting materials through pipelines, as wharf was 4 km away from the factory. Clearly, the ship unloader was the only available transpor....