2022 (2) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Ratlam, Chittor Section, is admissible. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture & clearance of excisable goods falling under Chapter 17, 35 and 11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant are having a captive wind power plant at Sujapur, Tahsil Jawra, Distt.-Ratlam (M.P.). The electricity generated from the said power plant was transmitted /given to Western Grid and thereafter the appellant received electricity from Western Grid at its factory at Rajnandgaon for its manufacturing purpose. They availed the cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,58,383/- (including cess) during the period 2012-13 to October, 2015 on the Service Tax paid on the amount incurred as repair & maintenance expenses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 13.04.2018 had remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to verify /examine as to whether the appellant's wind power plant at Surajpur (M.P.) and the factory at Rajnandgaon (C.G.), bear the same name and belong to the same owner, and whether the electricity transmitted through the grid in M.P. was received in the manufacture of excisable final goods at the appellant's factory at Rajnandgaon (C.G.). In the 2nd round, pursuant to remand to the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30.01.2019 disallowed the cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,58,383/- (including cess) and ordered for its recovery under Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 km away at Karunga. It was held that cenvat credit is not available. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that the Appellate Commissioner vide order-in-appeal dated 10.06.2019 has erred in upholding the order-in-original dated 30.01.2019 and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Further, in support of this contention, he relies on the following judgements of the Tribunal :- (i) M/s.RSWM Ltd. (Fabric Division) in Appeal No.2900 of 2011 (SM) vide Final Order No.53190 of 2014 dated 07.08.2014; (ii) CCE, Nagpur Vs.Ultratech Cement Ltd. -2010 (20) STR 683 (T-Mumbai) (iii) CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 297 (T-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntial benefits. 12. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department relies upon the impugned order. 13. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue herein is no longer res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant /assessee by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the allowability of the cenvat credit on the inputs or input sevices received outside the factory at the captive mines. I find that admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the wind mill is a captive unit of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant have generated power at the wind mill and transferred the power under Wheeling Dealing A....