TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s correct in considering the co-generation plant (used for generation of electricity) installed in a premises situated across the public road as a part of sugar factory and holding the unit eligible for common registration as a whole even when no semi-finished goods are used for the manufacture of finished goods in the said premises where co-gen plant is installed." By the order dated 26.05.2015, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'). The appeal had been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut arising from the order-in-original dated 4.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Saharanpur rejecting the application filed by the assessee for extension of it's registration to include the premises housing the co-generation power plant installed beyond the approved ground plan. According to the Tribunal, the co-generation power plant had been installed by the assessee in the factory of manufacture (of final product) with reference to Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued by the CBEC and also looking at the interlinked processes at the two plants established by the assessee and further in view of the fact that the Tribunal found that the sugar mill and co-generation power plant were inter-connected through over head conveyor belt to transport bagasse from the sugar mill plant to the co-generation power plant and the administration/work management at the two plants were common, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held it to be entitled a single registration. Appeal No. 332 of 2015: This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.05.2015. It was admitted on the following question of law:- "Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on plant and machinery as capital goods installed in the Co-generation power plant which is outside the approved factory premises and without bringing the same in their factory and without using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods." By that order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. That app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r both it's plants. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the 'factory' premises of the assessee for manufacture of sugar and molasses is situated completely on one side of the public road and it is further admitted to the assessee, that plant does not make use of bagasse and it does not manufacture steam or electricity. The capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been taken and utilized) were installed in the 'factory' premises located on the other side of the public road. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to a single registration. Opposing the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the revenue, Sri Puneet Bansal and Sri Nishant Mishra appearing for the assessee submitted that the matter of grant of registration is governed by Section 2(e) read with Section 6 of the Act; the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the instructions issued by the CBEC. Relying on the meaning of the word ''factory' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, it has been submitted, for the purpose of the Act and therefore, for grant of registration under the Act, 'factory' means any premises where exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st Schedule and the Second Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), or (b) the wholesale purchase or sale (whether on his own account or as a broker or commission agent) or the storage of any specified goods included in (the First Schedule and the Second Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), shall get himself registered with the proper officer in such manner as may be prescribed." Then, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provide for the procedure for grant of registration etc. It reads as under:- "Rule 9. Registration - (1) Every person, who produces, manufactures, carries on trade, holds private store-room or warehouse or otherwise uses exciseable goods (or an importer who issues an invoice on which CENVAT Credit can be taken), shall get registered: Provided that a registration obtained under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 shall be deemed to be as valid as the registration made under this sub-rule for the purpose of these rules. (2) The Board may by notification and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by learned counsel for the parties. In the first place, we observe that grant of registration is covered by the provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the circular issued by the CBEC. At this stage and for that purpose the CENVAT Rules have no applicability and/or relevance. Then, with reference to requirement of registration it is seen, Section 6 of the Act requires a person such as the assessee - engaged in production or manufacture or any processes of production or manufacture of specified goods (sugar and molasses in the present case), has to compulsorily obtain registration. Certain notifications have also been issued under Rule 9 providing for conditions, safeguards, procedure etc. pertaining to grant of registration. Clearly if a person is manufacturing two different items at two different premises, he is required to obtain separate registrations in respect of such separate process involving separate premises. In view of the supplementary instructions 3.2 extracted above, it was clearly stipulated that though generally separate registration are required in respect of separate premises, however, such premises may be treat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord. Then, the Tribunal has further found that the two premises of the assessee had a common administration/ work management. Also, peculiar to the facts of the case, the Tribunal found that the bagasse was directly transported from the sugar/molasses plant to the co-generation power plant through overhead conveyor belt. Thus, in view of the provision of Section 2(e) of the Act read with Rule 2(t) of the Rules and as self classified by the CBEC circular/instructions, the activities of the assessee at the two separate premises in question were clearly interlinked. 'Factory' under Section 2(e) of the Act, means any premises where part of manufacturing processes connected with the production of goods is carried on. Therefore, once it had been found that electricity produced at one premise of the assessee had been used to manufacture of sugar and molasses at the other premise and also that the bagasse manufactured at the other premises of the assessee (sugar and molasses plant) had been used to generate electricity at the premise of the assessee generating electricity, it appears the two premises together would constitute the 'factory' of the assessee under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o-generation power plant having been found to be clearly connected with and interlinked to the manufacturing process at the premises of the assessee engaged in manufacture of sugar and molasses the assessee was entitled to a single registration treating it's two premises to constitute a single 'factory' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. Having heard the arguments so made by learned counsel for the parties, we observe that in the first place, in view of our reasoning given while deciding the Appeal No. 327 of 2015, we do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the two premises of the assessee, taken together, constituted a single 'factory' under Section 2(e) of the Act. Then, for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit, it has to be examined whether the assessee could take credit of the CENVAT arising on capital goods used to generate electricity against central excise duty payable on removal of sugar and molasses. In this regard, the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules are relevant. It reads as below: Rule 3. CENVAT credit:- (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to....