TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time to time on the amount proposed to be demanded as above, from Noticee No 1, M/s Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 13.02 I impose a penalty of Rs. 3,63,05,053/- [Rupees Three Crore Sixty Three Lakhs Five Thousand and Fifty Three only] on the Noticee No 1, M/s Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 13.03 I impose a penalty of Rs. 36,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Only] on the Noticee No 2, M/s Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. There shall be no penalty under Rule 27 ibid on the Noticee No 2." 1.3 Order in Original No 12/2008/C date 21.08.2008 [Appeal No E/1101/08]- "12.01 I disallow an demand an amount of Rs. 3,97,70,821/- [Rupees Three Crore Ninety Seven Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty One only]{i.e. Rs. 3,89,89,358/- (Basic) + Rs. 7,79,881/- (Edn Cess) + Rs. 1,582/- (S & HS Cess)]towards the credit wrongly availed on capital goods used for construction of power plant during the period from 7January 2007 to October 2006 from the Noticee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken the credit were used by the 2nd Party for setting up the power plant. These goods were actually never received by the appellants in their factory premises. Even the payments for goods/ raw material, erection and installation of the power plant were made by the 2nd Party. Thus the CENVAT Credit taken by the appellants was irregular and inadmissible in view of Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 2 (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. iv. The final output of power plant is electricity, steam and ash which are not chargeable to excise duty or are exempt from payment of Central Excise Duty and thus the credit of duty paid on the goods used in erection of the power plant is not admissible in view of Rule 2(a) and 2(h) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. v. The credit has been taken in respect of certain goods namely a. Bunker used temporarily in the boiler for storage of crushed coal; b. Ash handling system used for disposal of ash; c. The supporting structures used for platform and for installation of various parts and components are in nature of construction material for support; d. Supporting columns of the boiler which are fabricated goods of iron and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the ownership of capital goods has not been prescribed as criteria for taking the CENVAT Credit. Reliance is placed on the decisions in case of German Remedies Ltd [2002 (144) ELT 606 (T), Maruti Udyog Ltd [2004 (165) ELT 226 (T)], Sharda Motor Industries Ltd [2002 (150) ELT 759 9T)], Hongo India (P) Ltd [2003 (160) ELT 470 (T)] & Iljin Automotive Pvt Ltd [2004 (175) ELT 169 (T)]. c. All the goods on which the credit has been taken by the appellants were used in their factory since the thermal power plant is within their factory premises without any boundary wall or any fence demarcation. The fact that certain portion of the land within their premises has been leased out for setting up the said power plant will not mean that the said portion of land is not the part of their factory premises. Decision relied upon by the commissioner viz Majestic Auto Ltd [1999 (107) ELT 133] has been differed by the tribunal in case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. [2008 (224) ELT 484] d. Neither the power plant nor the electricity is final product since electricity generated is entirely used within the factory for the manufacture of final products. Reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect from 01.02.2007, Hence the denial of credit on the ground that the same was separate entity incorrect. 4.1 We have Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Bidhan Chandra, Additional Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. Both appellant and revenue has filed the written submission in the matter 4.2 Arguing for the appellants and in his written submissions, learned counsel submitted that- a. Goods on which the credit has been taken by the appellants were all used in their factory since thermal power plant (TTP) is situated within the factory premises of the appellants and there is no boundary wall fence/ demarcating TTP from the factory premises. Merely for the reason that the place within the premises where TTP has been set up is leased to 2nd Party will not mean that the capital goods used in such place are not in their possession. b. The issue involved is no longer res-integra and covered by the decision in case of JSW Steel [2014 (307) ELT 929 (T)]. In view of the fact that issue on similar facts have been decided holding the admissibility of credit, the impugned orders need to be set aside. c. Factory premises continued to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proper. The decision of Vandana Global [2010 (253) ELT 440 (T-LB)] relied upon by the Commissioner has been set aside by the Chhatisgarh High Court reported at [2018 (16) ELT GSTL 462 (Chhatisgarh)]. Issue is also covered by the decision in case of Mundra Port [2015 (39) STR (Guj)]. k. The decision of Tower Vision [2016-TIOL-539- CESTAT-DEL-LB] relied upon by the AR has been overruled by the Delhi High Court in case Vodafone India [2018-TIOL-2049-HC-DEL-ST] l. The fact that 2nd Party has merged with the Appellant is not disputed and hence denial of the credit on the ground that the same was separate entity is incorrect in law. m. Show Cause Notice dated 5.2.2007 sought to deny the credit availed by them during the April 2005 to November 2006. The demand for the period April 2005 to November 2005 is beyond normal period of limitation and hence time barred as they had not suppressed any facts from the revenue. Invocation of extended period of limitation in the present case cannot be justified. n. Penalties cannot be imposed as on merits the duty is not payable., and hence penalty imposed cannot be sustained. 4.2 Learned Authorized Representative submitted stating that-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Appellant sub leased 46219 sq mts of its premises to 2nd Party. * Clause (ii)- 2nd Party agreed to develop, design, procure, finance, construct, own, operate and maintain a TPP in the premises leased to them. * Clause (iii)- 2nd Party agreed to sell power generated to Appellant and any excess power could be sold to any other person. * Clause (iv)- Both parties agreed to execute Definite Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). * Clause (vii)- Contract to be valid for the period from 1.04.2005 to 31.03.2005. No exit clause provided. h. 2nd Party sought permission from Director Steam Boilers Maharashtra for erecting Boiler at its leased premises vide its letter dated 17.10.2005. By challan dated 11.10.2005/ 15.10.2005 paid the statutory inspection fees for this purpose. i. On 18.01.2006, Environment Department Maharashtra granted Environmental Clearance to 2nd Party for setting up TPP and held it responsible for its activities and duties under * Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1971; * Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1971; * Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 * Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. j. On 31.03.2006, MIDC accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id on capital shall be allowed only if the capital good are received in the factory of manufacture of final products after 10.09.2004. * Rule 4(2) provides that credit of any capital goods shall be allowed only if the capital goods are received in factory of manufacture of final products. The installment system of allowing credit is available only on receipt of capital goods in the factory of manufacture of final products. t. Mention of Appellants as consignee on the invoices was with an ulterior motive to enable appellants avail the credit. Appellants have credit between 19.01.2006 to 26.09.2006 on goods claimed to be capital goods received in their factory. The goods were never received in their factory but in the premises leased to 2nd Party. u. Supreme Court has in decisions as follows held that if the Capital Goods are used in the factory of the manufacturer of final products and that the manufacturer can produce evidence of such use then only credit can be allowed: * KCP [2013 (295) ELT 353 (SC), * Vikram Cement [2006 (197) 145 (SC)], * Madras Cement [2010 (254) ELT 3 (SC)] & * Madras Cement [2010 (257) ELT 321 (SC)] v. 2nd Party has also not received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that plot of land? ii. Whether the CENVAT Credit in respect of Capital Goods, receive by the 2nd Party on the leased plot and used by them for erection/ installation of thermal power plant will be admissible to appellant for the reason that invoices showed them as consignee. iii. Whether the CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods is admissible in respect of those Capital Goods which are reflected as Capital Assets in book of accounts of the other legal entity and have been capitalized therein. iv. Whether CENVAT Credit in respect of those goods which are not identifiable but classified under Chapter 84 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. v. Whether demand is hit by limitation and penalty under Rule 15 of CEVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read Section 11AC justified in the present case on the Appellant. 5.3 Whether the plot of land leased out by the appellant to 2nd party formed the part of factory premises of the Appellant? Who owns, operates and maintains the Thermal Power Plant erected on that plot of land? 5.3.1 Undisputed or admitted fact is that the Appellant and 2nd Party are two separately constituted legal entities with different PAN, CST No & MST/ BST No a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame is handed over to the Lessor subject to the terms of the contract express or implied" as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Subash Rukmayya Guttedar AIR 1993 SC 860; 1993 supp (3) SCC 290, 294: AIR SCW 3492 dated 16.02.1992. 6.09.03. A "lease" is transfer of a right to enjoy the property as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tirth Ram Gupta Vs Gurbachan Singh AIR 1987 SC 770; 1987 (1) SC 712; 1987 (2) SCR 190; 1987 (1) JT 365; 1987 (1) Scale 255; 1987 (1) UJ 610; 1987 (2) RCJ 369. 6.09.04 From the above judgments, it is clear that a lease is a document which effects an actual demise and operates as lease and must create a present and immediate interest in land. When there is interest and complete possession by the Noticee No 2, on the leased land, the Lessor i.e. Noticee No 1 cannot be held to be in possession of the leased portion of land and cannot have the right on the said land. Hence the contention of the Noticee No 1 that the power plant is located in their factory premises is untenable." 5.3.4 In our view once the plot of land which has been leased out by the Appellant to 2nd Party, the same cannot be said to be in possessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rental shall be payable by IRPL to IRSL on a monthly basis on mutually agreeable terms ii) RPL would develop, design, engineer, procure, finance, construct, own, operate & maintain the Captive Power Plant with a Gross Capacity of 2 X 15 MW and net exportable capacity of 2 X 13.5 MW at Butibori Nagpur. iii) IRPL would supply entire requirement of power of IRSL to it on mutually agreed rates and only the surplus power not required by IRSL can be supplied by IRPL to parties (including MSEB) other than IRSL. iv) The parties would execute a Definite Power Purchase Agreement upon fulfillment of the following C conditions precedent: a) The company shall have been granted and received all permits, clearances and approvals (whether statutory or otherwise) as are required to execute and operate the Project (hereinafter referred to as "Approvals" b) The Financial Closure shall have occurred. v) That the terms and conditions as well as the payment for the power supply and all other relevant terms and conditions would be mutually agreed by the parties and form part of the Definite Power Purchase Agreement to be executed between the parties. vi) IRSL has agreed to share co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or manufacture of finished goods. The ground plan of the plot A-31, MIDC Industrial Area, Butibori Nagpur is reproduced below: From perusal of the ground plan it is quite evident that on the said plot marked as A-31 MIDC Industrial Area, Butibori Nagpur, apart from factory of Appellant, quite a good number of other things including the leased out land to 2nd Party, Plot identified as Indo Rama Textiles Ltd., residential complex, temple etc are located. Just because these facilities are located on the same plot they cannot be called the factory premises of the Appellant. The contention that what so ever is located on the said plot needs to be considered as part of their factory of manufacture has been rejected by the Tribunal in appellants own case reported at [2006 (199) ELT 0175 (T)] and affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in [2007 (219) ELT 122 (Bom)]. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held- "21. The fact that the residential complexes are situated within the licensed premises would not entitle the assessee to avail credit of duty paid on furnace oil used in the manufacture of electricity supplied to the residential complexes. It is necessary to establish that the electricity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that since the mine was registered under the Factories Act, it cannot have the benefit of exemption in the Notification No. 63/95-C.E. since as per Section 2(m) of the Factories Act a factory means any premises including the precincts thereof but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952. 14.In our opinion the registration of a mine under the Factories Act has nothing to do with the assessee's claim for exemption under the Central Excise Act. In fact the reference to the Factories Act itself was wholly irrelevant and we fail to see what the Factories Act has to do with the present case. The present case is covered by the Central Excise Act and has nothing to do with the Factories Act. Hence the view taken by the Tribunal is, with due respect to it, clearly erroneous. 15.It has to be considered in the present case whether the workshop in question is said to be a workshop within the precincts of a mine. 16.The word 'precincts' is not a word of clear import which has a single, clear-cut meaning. Collin's English Dictionary defines 'precincts' to mean "the surrounding region or area". 17.In the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncourage the mining industry. A workshop which is in an area in the environs of a mine and is existing solely for the purpose connected with the mine and under the same management, is obviously directly serving the mining operations. Hence, we have to interpret the notification so as to include such a workshop within the definition of a mine for the purpose of grant of exemption, as that would encourage the mining industry." Even in the above referred decision benefit after adopting the principle of purposive interpretation was given only after noting that the workshop was under the same management. In our view since the thermal power plant at material time at least before the merger of 2nd Party with Appellant was under a distinct management and was owned by the distinct company, even if located on the same plot cannot be said to part of the manufacturing operations of Appellant. 5.3.13 From the above it is quite evident that the- i. Thermal power plant erected at A-31 MIDC Industrial Area, Butibori District Nagpur, has been erected on the plot which do not form the part of factory premises of the Appellant. ii. Appellant neither owns that thermal power plant nor operate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed assets are capitalized upto the date when such assets are ready for its intended use. 2) The Company's is presently implementing 30 MW (2 X 15 MW) Thermal Power Plant at Butibori and has incurred Rs. 6427.6 Lacs (previous Year Rs. 905 lacs) for the said purpose. The proposed Power Plant would supply power to the Indo Rama Synthetic (India) Limited (IRSL) and other Group Companies at mutually agreed tariff and terms. 5) Certain expenses amounting to Rs. 3181806/- (Previous Year) have been debited by IRSL according to the arrangement entered between the companies for the use of common utilities and facilities, the same has been charged to respective heads of accounts. 10) Capital Work in progress (CWIP) includes construction/ capital material at site, building under construction, site development expenses, plant and machinery under erection etc." From the above facts as mentioned in the balance sheet of the 2nd Party it is quite evident that the Thermal Power Plant Project at Butibori was being implemented by them and all the expenditure towards the procurement of the goods etc was incurred by them on their own account and not on the account of Appellants. It is also e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., at Butibori and hence they have given me the power of attorney to deal with day to day activities of Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. and deal with various Central and State government departments. Q. What are the activities of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd., Butibori? Ans. M/s Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd. is a manufacturer of of Yarn of Polyesters and is selling the same. Q. What are the activities of Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd.? Ans.- Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. is at present installing Power Generating Plant. Till date they have not started generating electricity. It is their first power project which is yet to commence generating electricity. Q What is the purpose for installing power generating plant by Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd.? Ans.- The purpose for setting up power generating plant at IDC, Butibori is to supply the power to Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd at mutually agreed tariff and terms. Q. Whether the power so generated by Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. is given to the group companies at specific rate? Ans.- Yes. The Power that would be generated will be given to the group companies at mutually agreed rates. Q. Whether the balance sheets of both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ics Ltd., as consignee and account/ customer's name as Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. on the invoices at the instance of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd.? Ans. Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. being the company setting up the power plant within the premises of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd. and the power generated is solely for consumption by Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd and group companies the documents were drawn as consignee as Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd. and the buyer as Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. Q. Whether the power plant is the property of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd.? Ans.- No. It is the property of Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. only. Q. Whether Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd has shared any amount towards installation of power project? Ans.- No. Q. Whether you are paying Service tax on Goods Transport Agency for the goods received in to Indo Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. by your vendors in their name or in the name of M/s Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd. for installation of power plant? Ans.- No. We have not paid any Service Tax on the goods received for power plant. It is the sole responsibility of the vendor." 5.4.8 The fact that the capital goods received for installation in of the power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and fittings thereof; and (vii) storage tank, used - (1) in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office; or (2) for providing output service; RULE 3. CENVAT credit. - (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a [provider of output service] shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of - (i) to (x) .......... paid on - (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product or the provider of output service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004; and (ii) ........... RULE 4. Conditions for allowing CENVAT credit. - (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. (2)(a) The CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods received in a factory or in the premises of the provider of output service at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding fifty per cent. of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are clearly distinguishable. Facts as recorded by the tribunal in its order are as follows: "8. Earlier, the main appellants were known as M/s. Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd. ('SISCOL' - in short), which was established in 1996 and was in working condition till 2002. M/s. SISCOL was also brought under 'Restructuring Scheme' under Corporate Debt Restructuring ('CDR' - in short). Thereafter, M/s. SISCOL was declared a sick company and was brought under BIFR. Therefore, in order to enable them to get the finance for 'CPP', M/s. SISCOL leased out a portion of their factory premises of 50.14 acres to M/s. JSWPL for the purpose of setting up of 'CPP' on 17-1-2005, for a nominal amount of Rs. 10,000/- p.a. M/s. JSWPL pledged the land with the UTI Bank Ltd., to raise fund to the tune of Rs. 62 crores, for the purpose of setting up of the 'CPP' in the leased factory land for captive use of M/s. SISCOL in the manufacture of their final product i.e., iron and steel. M/s. JSWPL also used the funds to procure capital goods for the purpose of setting up the 'CPP'. They had instructed their suppliers to indicate in the invoice as "M/s. JSWPL, Consignee of M/s. SISCOL" and on the strengt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Further, we find that the learned JCDR also relied on the decision of M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 446 (Tri.-Chennai), this Tribunal hold that although M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., is not the manufacturer of power plant but finally credit on the capital goods was allowed. Therefore, as in this case also the final product is iron and steel. For manufacturing of that final product, 'CPP' was to be installed. Therefore, following the decision of M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. (supra), the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit on capital goods used in the manufacture of 'CPP' by M/s. JSWPL. 33. In view of the above discussions, we find that the land has been leased to M/s. JSWPL only to set up a 'CPP' to take care of the power requirements of M/s. SISCOL on payment of annual rent of Rs. 10,000/- only. The said lease deed has been executed for raising the finance for setting up the 'CPP' as per CDR scheme. Further, M/s. JSWPL and M/s. SISCOL merged with M/s. JSWSL, therefore, and relying on the case laws of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 960 (Tri.-Del.), M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 446 (Tri.- Chennai) and M/s. Vikram Cemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n lease to the Appellant No. 2. This is also very clear from the Lease Agreement that the Lessee i.e. Appellants No. 2 shall enjoy the Demised Premises during the lease period without interruption by the lessor (i.e. Appellant No. 1). In terms of the Lease Agreement, the Appellants No. 2 enjoy the said premises and therefore it cannot be claimed to be the part of factory premises of the Appellants No. 1. 6.2 Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules empower a manufacturer to take the credit of the duty paid on the capital goods used in the factory of the manufacturer of final products. Rule 57S deals with the "manner of utilization of the capital goods." As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 57S, the capital goods "may be (i) used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products; or (ii) removed, after intimating the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory and after obtaining dated acknowledgement of the same, from the factory for home consumption or for export on payment of appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon or for export under bond, as if the capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory." 6.3 As the premises in which the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved from that premises, for that reason High Court has set aside the order of tribunal stating that since machinery continued to be installed within the factory premises provisions of Rule 57S shall not be applicable. However High Court was not dealing with the case where the plant and machinery was procured by the person on his own account, to whom the plot of land was leased for setting up a thermal power plant to be operated on commercial basis. When the ownership of the said plant and machinery was vested throughout with the 2nd Party, how can the Appellant claim the CENVAT Credit of duty paid on Capital Goods, installed on the leased out land on the basis of this decision of Allahabad High Court. 5.5.5 Similarly the reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of Madras High Court in case of Dalmia Cement [2015 (323) ELT 290 (Mad)], Steel Authority of India Limited [2016 (332) ELT 825 (T)] and Bhilai Steel Plant [2017 (1) TMI 293 (T)], cannot justify their stand. The issue under the consideration was in respect of removal of goods. The question that was being addressed was whether the goods which were already there on which credit has been taken, stood removed when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the power unit of the assessee in respect whereof MODVAT credit was availed by the assessee so as to attract the penal provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The said transactions of sale of power unit and simultaneous lease of premises are wisely resorted to by the assessee as a device to avoid the tax liability on it on the ground that the power unit was not physically removed from the premises of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal without application of mind and without proper appreciation of the said transactions in the light of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules has allowed the appeal of the assessee-company and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum. In the circumstances, we answer the above question of law in the 'negative' and against the assessee." 5.5.7 Appellants have relied upon various decisions as stated at para 4.2 (i), supra to argue that ownership of the capital goods is not relevant for determining the eligibility to CENVAT Credit. We have no dispute with the said preposition. However the issue under consideration is not vis a vis the owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was available, it cannot be allowed subsequently. It was held that when the machinery in respect of which the capital goods had been taken, were not used for manufacture of dutiable goods on the date of receipt in the factory, capital goods credit is not available on such machinery. 9. The ACE Timez decision reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 371, which takes a contrary view from those set out above, considers Rules 4(2)(a) & (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and holds that these rules do not provide for denial of credit on the ground that it is not taken in the same financial year in which capital goods were received, and only restricts credit to 50% of the duty paid, in the financial year of receipt of capital goods, and do not provide for lapsing of credit if the balance 50% is not taken in the same financial year in which the capital goods were received. The above judgment does not consider Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which clearly stipulates that no credit shall be allowed on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. In other words, the ACE Timez decision discusses the manner in which credit to be availed as per Rule 4(2)(a) & (b) and do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.6.3 Similarly with regards to credit in respect of miscellaneous goods classified by the supplier under Chapter 84, relying on the decision of Apex Court in case of Madras Cement [2010 (254 0 ELT 3 (SC)] we hold that the credit would not be admissible without identification of goods. However this question to becomes irrelevant as the issue has been decided on the fact that these goods were not received and used by the appellants for the process of production of finished goods. 5.7.3 Since we are not adjudicating the case in relation to excisablity of the thermal power plant we do not dwell into submissions made by both the sides on this issue and various case laws relied upon by the revenue. 5.7.4 However in the remand proceedings in respect of the goods received after the date of effect of merger of two units, Commissioner should consider these issues afresh while considering the case for allowing or disallowing the credit in respect of the goods received after date of merger. 5.8 Whether demand is hit by limitation and penalty under Rule 15 of CEVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read Section 11AC justified in the present case on the Appellant. 5.8.1 Since both the show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould very well be invoked in this case in as much as the Noticee No 1, has failed to take reasonable steps before taking eligible credit as responsibility of assessing the correct duty liability on the clearance of final products and taking of Cenvat credit on eligible capital goods lies only with the assessee.": i. TISCO [1988 (330 ELT 297 (Pat); ii. Peterplast Synthetics Pvt Ltd [2005 (192) ELT 842 (T)] iii. Tamilnadu Coop Textiles Processing Mills Ltd [2007 (207) ELT 593 (T)] iv. Bajaj Tempo Ltd [2001 (133) ELT 749 (T)] v. Unshine Tube Pvt Ltd [2002 (136) ELT 231 (T)] vi. Khushal Fertilizer (P) Ltd [2005 (186) ELT 114 (T)] vii. Faridabad Metal Udyog (P) Ltd [2001 (138) ELT 1021 (T)] viii. Kores India Ltd [2003 (152) ELT 395 (T)] ix. Amco Batteries Ltd. [1999 (112) ELT 665 (T)] x. Central Coalfields Ltd {1999 (106) ELT 476 (T)] 5.8.2 We do not any reason to differ with the findings of the Commissioner. We would like to add the fact that piece of land has been leased out to 2nd Party and Thermal Power Plant was being erected there by the 2nd Party on their own account to commercially exploit the same was never brought to the knowledge of the departm....