TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue has been decided in their favour in their own case reported at 2012 (25) STR 167 (Tri). She also relied upon the following judgments: (a) Rajratan Global Wires Ltd. - 2012 (26) STR 117 (Tri) (b) Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (273) ELT 248 (Tri) (c) Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (52) STR 361 (Born) (d) Parry Engg. & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (40) STR 243 (Tri-LB) 3. Shri D.S. Chavan, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that there are contrary decisions as under: - (a) Mandi Suzuki Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice. The appellants challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order of confirmation of demand of CENVAT credit along with interest and imposition of penalty of equal amounts. Hence, these appeals. 3. Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that they have availed CENVAT credit on Service tax paid on input services for maintenances of wind mill at Satara. The electricity generated at Satara is transmitted to MSEB Power Grid at Satara and in turn equal quantum of electricity are credited to MSEB Pen circle from where the appellant company is supplied power for the manufacturing of finished goods. She further submitted that in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituated at different place. He also placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Asian Tubes Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 58 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = 2011 (263) E.LT. 707 (Tri. - Almd.). The learned JDR also submitted that they are not receiving the same quantum of electricity at their unit, which is produced at their wind mill. In the rejoinder, leamed Counsel submitted that this was not the issue in any of the proceedings of the department. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The CENVAT credit, on Service Tax paid on input services used in maintenance of wind mill located at Satara, was denied to their manufacturing unit situated at Raigad on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Input services were rendered for maintenance of wind mills for generation of electricity is not in dispute. The electricity so generated is used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the service falls under the definition of input service. As regards input service used at a different place it is pertinent that there is no mandate in law that it should be used in the factory unlike inputs, which is clear from Rules 4(1) and 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reproduced herein :- "Rule 4(1) The CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer or in the premises of the provider of output service . Provided that in respect of final products, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that the denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that services were not received by the respondent in factory premises is not sustainable. 8. So far as contention of the department that the same quantum of electricity has not been received in the factory for manufacturing of final products, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel that this was not an issue in any of the proceedings of the department. The appellant has paid service tax on the input services is also not in dispute. As regard the reliance placed by the learned JDR in the case of Rajhans Metals (supra) and Asian Tubes Ltd. (supra), I note that decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd (supra) was not before t....