TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-in-Appeal No. 280/2007/ COMMR(A)/RAJ dated 28-9-2007. I find that the issue involved in this stay petition and appeal and also the issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Ajanta Transistor Clock Mfg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ATC) against the order-in-appeal No. 355 /2007/COMMR(A)/RAJ dated 12-12-2007 are same. The second appeal has been listed for taking note of compliance and regular hearing. 2. ATC have deposited the entire amount of duty as ordered in Order No. S/247/WZB/Ahd/2008 dated 28-3-2008 and therefore the case is taken up for regular hearing. 3. Since the issue involved is same and the second appeal filed by ATC has been taken up for regular hearing, the pre-deposit of duty demanded from ET is waived and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate for the appellants stated that even though the wind mills have been located at more than 200 kms. from the factory, they are able to utilize the electrical energy produced in the wind mills after reduction of 2% of the electricity produced as wheeling charge. In addition the memorandum of understanding with the Electricity Board also extends facilities like energy banking etc. which are not relevant in the present proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in view of the fact that wind mills are located far off from the factory and the services are not received in the factory and electricity is not excisable, Cenvat credit is not admissible. He has also distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efinition of input services is whether such service is used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products and in this case services received at wind mill farm are used in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Vikram Cement's case also supports the stand that there no condition that input services must be received in the factory. Ld. Advocate distinguished the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Rajhans Metal Pvt. Ltd.'s case cited above. He states that their case is squarely covered by M/s. Vikram Cement's judgment and therefore the above case is not applicable. He also pointed out that what is important in deciding eligibility for credit of service tax paid on input services is nexus between the final product manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to Larger Bench and therefore may not be relied upon. 11. After a detailed consideration of all the points raised by both the parties, I find no reason to differ from the two orders already passed by this Tribunal on the same subject in identical situation. The apex court's judgment in M/s. Vikram Cement's case does not help the appellants since the power plant is not a captive power plant. The Tribunal has already examined and considered the fact that power is delivered by electricity board after charging wheeling charges and decision has been taken that credit is not admissible in such situation. Input services have been received in the power plant belonging to the applicants but the power has been delivered to the electricity board.....