TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 974
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit in respect of inputs and capital goods used in the captive power plant. 1.1 The department being of the view that Renusagar Power Plant being located at a different premises is not part of the factory and is a separate entity and, as such, it could not be termed as captive power plant, issued show cause notice for recovery of allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 16,34,633/- in respect of inputs and capital goods during the period from April 2009 to March 2010 along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 18-10-2010 by which he confirmed the above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand along with interest and imposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....captive power plant is not sustainable. 4. Ms. Ranjana Jha, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue, submits that admittedly Renusagar Power Plant is located at a distance of about 40-50 kms. from the production unit of the appellant and, as such, it cannot be termed as a captive power plant. She, further submitted that otherwise also, the power generated at Renusagar Power Plant was also supplied to the Renusagar plant township and, as such, the power plant cannot be termed as captive power plant. Learned Jt. CDR has referred to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and submitted that as per the definition of 'input', it is imperative that the inputs to be eligible for Cenvat credit must be used within the factory of production and as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r production of aluminium. While the department relying upon Larger Bench's judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas v. CCE, Allahabad (supra) pleads that the captive power plant located far-away from the factory cannot be treated as part of the factory and inputs and capital goods used therein would not be eligible for Cenvat credit, the appellant rely upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). The Apex Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) while dealing with the question as to whether the explosives used in the mines to produce lime stone for use in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... viz. cement." 6.1 In this judgment, the Apex Court over-ruled its earlier judgment in the case of CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.). 6.2 The Apex Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) again held that the explosives, lubricating oil and capital goods used in the mines for mining of lime stone which is used in the cement factory located at some distance away would be eligible for Cenvat credit, if the mines are captive mines so that they along with the factory constitute one integrated unit. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Madras Cements Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 6.3&....