TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mines (Kathautia) and Captive Iron Ore Mines (Bokna) at Jamshedpur pursuant to mining leases dated 15 October 2007 and 16 August 2005 respectively granted by the Jharkhand State Government. The entire quantity of coal and iron ore mined at Kathautia and Bokna respectively were transferred to the said manufacturing facility for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods save and except iron ore rejects which were not compatible for processing at the manufacturing facility. 3. The manufacturing facility operated under the Cenvat Credit Scheme and, inter alia, availed full/proportionate credit, as the case may be in respect of services rendered at the two mines including the services required for transportation of coal/iron ore from the respective Captive Mines to the manufacturing facility. Such credit was availed either on the strength of invoices issued by the supplier of services or on the basis of ISD invoices issued by the Bokna Iron Ore Mines. 4. Five periodical Show-cause Notices were issued covering the period 2005-06 to 2010-11 to the manufacturing facility of the Appellant proposing denial of Cenvat credit of service tax in respect of services p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the manufacturer. (b) Vikram Cement relates to availability of credit on "inputs" and in view of the limitation imposed by Rule 3 of CCR read with definition of input services requiring receipt and use by the manufacturer, the said decision not applicable. The factory and the mines do not constitute one integrated unit but are separate units. Condition attached in the mining lease does not alter that fact and that in any event entire iron ore mined has not been used by the Appellant. (c) Inclusion of the cost of Iron Ore in valuing the Iron & Steel products does not entitle the factory to avail credit in view of Sundaram Brake Lines Case relying upon the SC decision in Maruti Suzuki - 2009 (240) ELT 641. (d) GTA services from Bokna Mines to Rail head not covered by Board Circular No. 97 dt. 23.08.07 as the service not in the nature of input service for the manufacturer and payment for the said service made by the mine. [These observations pertain only to OIO No. 32 (EA 717/2010)]. (e) Bokna Mines is engaged in the raising and transportation of non-excisable goods and therefore cannot be said to be an office of the manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the Appellant is treated as a separate profit center or has separate mention in the annual report. For exercising better control, even different parts of the same factory may be treated as separate profit centers by the management of the factory. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions to contend that branches of a Company are not separate entities: (i) English Electric Co. of India Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1976 4 SCC 460] (ii) Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. CTO, [1985 4 SCC 173] (c) The definition of input service in Rule 2(l) of the CCR is wide enough to include services used by a manufacturer directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final products without any restriction as regards the usage of such services within the factory premises and also includes services received outside the factory and also specifically covers services in relation to procurement of inputs. Reference in this regard is invited to the following decisions: (i) Coca Cola Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (g) All the relevant facts concerning the ISD was duly disclosed to the Department by the Appellant vide their letter dated 25.04.2008. Further, a statement tabulating the CENVAT credit taken by the Appellant including the ISD credit was submitted along with the ER-1 returns filed during the relevant period. Therefore, no suppression or mis-statement so as to justify invocation of extended period. (h) Imposition of dual penalty under Rule 15(4) of the CCR on the Appellant's factory and Bokna mines in unjustified and in any event not supported by any sub-clause of Rule 15 is so far ISD is concerned. (i) The decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Sundaram Brake Linings case reported in 2010 (19) STR 172 on which reliance has been placed by the revenue is no more a good law as the same stands reversed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as reported in 2015 (39) STR 982. In any event, the final product cannot be manufactured without Iron Ore and Coal and therefore the services are integral to the business of manufacturing the final product. 8. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the revenue on the other hand, supports the impugned Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t services received at the Captive Mines had fallen for consideration of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries case (supra). The period involved therein was March 2005 to October 2010 and the credit was availed by the assessee's factory therein, directly as also on the strength of ISD invoices issued by the mines. The Tribunal allowed the credit of service tax to the assessee's factory by treating the Captive Mines and the factory as one integrated unit. Para 9 of the said decision reads as under: "(9) ............... We note that Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Vikaram Cement reported at 2006 (197) ELT 3 (SC) had ruled that if the mines are the captive mines then the Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will be available to the appellant. We find from the records submitted before us that the above stated mines were captive mines for the appellants also due to reason that revenue has stated on record that the records being maintained at various mines were having the same PAN Number. Therefore, the Cenvat credit of service tax on services availed at mines was admissible to the appellant. Further, we note that the appellant ....