2016 (7) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent M/s. EID Parry are manufacturers of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents have installed a captive power plant or co-generation plant in their sugar factory located at Kurumbur, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District. The respondents have availed credit of duty paid on the components and accessories used for setting up the co-generation plant in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Subsequently, show cause notice in C.No.V/Ch.17/15/29/2006-Cx.Adj. Dated 25.9.2016 was served on the respondent stating that the respondents have availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the Machineries, Components and other accessories to the tune of Rs. 7,07,18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....city as alleged in the show casue notice and that the electricity is not to be treated as exempted goods as neither any exemption is available for electricity nor the same is specified at Nil duty in the tariff and thus Rule 6 of CCR 2004 is not at all applicable in the present scenario and that invocation of Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004 is not correct as the captive power plant is not used exclusively in the manufacture of electricity but only within the factory in the manufacture of sugar and molasses barring the fact that some quantity of electricity is given to TNEB Grid. Personal hearing was given to the respondent. 4. The Commissioner of Central Excise considered the objections of the respondent and passed by the following order by Order No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal. At the time of admission of the Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing credit for the entire co-generation plant without examining the eligibility or otherwise of the individual items? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in permitting credit on items such as angles, beams, channels, ladder trays, joists supporting structures, steel structures which are neither inputs nor capital goods as per the definition especially in the light of the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of CESTAT, New Delhi reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T.169? 7. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has fai....