TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assail the Order in Appeal No. 164- CRM-CE-JDR-2020 Dated 18/03/2020 wherein Cenvat Credit was denied on components /spares/ accessories used in the manufacture of captive power plant. Appeal Numbers Cenvat Credit involved (Rs.) Period involved Credit denied on E/50838/2020 29,45,241.00 October 2013 to March 2014 Captive power plant E/50839/2020 42,44,601.00 April, 2007 to Sept, 2007 Captive power plant E/50840/2020 38,17,824.00 April, 2013 to Sept., 2013 Captive power plant E/50841/2020 20,96,403.00 Oct. 2007. To March, 2008 Captive power plant E/50842/2020 35,86,060.00 Oct., 2012 to March, 2013 Captive power plant E/50843/2020 24,60,490.00 Oct., 2009 to March, 2010 Captive power plant E/50844/2020 48,39,822.00 Oct., 2015 to June, 2017 Captive power plant E/50845/2020 9,68,778.00 Oct., 2014 to March, 2015 Captive power plant E/50846/2020 38,83,993.00 Oct., 2010 to March, 2011 Captive power plant E/50847/2020 43,37,935.00 April, 2012 to Sept., 2012 Captive power plant E/50848/2020 23,54,685.00 April, 2014 to Sept., 2014 Captive power plant E/50849/2020 27,07,104.00 April, 2011 to Sept., 2011 Captive power plant E/50850/2020 32,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) to assail the Order-in-Original No. UDZ-EXCUS-000-COM-040-047-2021-22 dated 31/03/2022 wherein Cenvat Credit was denied on components /spares/ accessories used in the manufacture of captive power plant. Appeal Numbers Cenvat Credit involved (Rs.) Period involved Credit denied on E/51663/2022 11,05,25,483.00 April, 2008 - December, 2008 Captive power plant E/51664/2022 13,093.00 October, 2009 - May, 2010 Captive power plant E/51665/2022 5,28,305.00 November, 2011 - July, 2012 Captive power plant E/51666/2022 7,31,62,081.00 September, 2007 - March, 2008 Captive power plant E/51667/2022 3,01,48,560.00 January,2009 - September, 2009 Captive power plant E/51671/2022 14,67,279.00 April, 2012 & August 2012 to March, 2013 Captive power plant E/51672/2022 1,87,41,388.00 April, 2007 - August, 2007 Captive power plant EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52065/2022 This appeal has been filed by the appellant having their unit at Debari Distt. Udaipur (Rajasthan) to assail the Order-in- Original No. UDZ-EXCUS-000-COM-003-2022-23 dated 30/05/2022 wherein Cenvat Credit was denied on components /spares/ accessories used in the manufacture of KPTA plant. Appeal Numbers Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Central Excise [2002 (150) ELT 638 (Tri-Mum)] The learned counsel contended that the extended period is not invokable as per the understanding of the appellant. CENVAT credit was eligible and no information regarding taking of such credit was required to be submitted by them in the prescribed returns. Further, there is no provision in the law for giving any intimation about availing such credit. The fact of taking such credit was clearly reflected in the documents and records maintained by the appellants. There is no positive corroborative evidence that the appellant has wilfully suppressed this from the department. Consequently, once there is no mensrea, penalty equal to the demand cannot be imposed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Show cause notices in the present matters were transferred to Call Book as in a similar matter in Aditya Cement Itd. v. CCE, Jaipur, the Revenue department had filed Reference Application No. 18/2003 before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court against the CESTAT's Final Order No. A/369/2002-NB dated 6.3.2002. The Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 27.3.2008, rejected the department's appeal and u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t". 7. The Learned Counsel also stated that Rule 3(1) of the Credit Rules, entitles a manufacturer of final product to take Cenvat credit of excise duty "paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product". In the present case, there is no dispute that the components/parts of CPP were received at the factory premises, under duty paid invoices, issued in the name of appellants. Further, CPPs have admittedly been manufactured out of such parts/ spares/ components which further facilitated the production of electricity being used in the manufacture of dutiable final product i.e., of Zinc and lead. Therefore, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the Appellant. 8. While reiterating the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, the learned Authorised Representative emphasized the following: i) The Cenvat credit had been availed on parts and components which were used in setting up the captive Power Plant (in short "CPP"), on turnkey basis, by an independent contractor, BHEL/ L&T, who were engaged by the appellant for procurement, design, manufacture, erection and commissioning of CPP, at the site of the appellant (HZL). ii) A commercial co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the impugned show cause notice to 50% in each year. We note that the Tribunal in several earlier decisions has held that the prerequisite for availment of CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods in the factory of manufacturer is its receipt in the factory and use in the manufacture of dutiable final product. The Tribunal in a similar factual matrix in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2001(130)ELT 129(Tri Del)], held as follows:- "7. We see force in the plea have carefully considered the rival submissions. regarding applicability of Rule 57-T(7) to the present case. This Rule states that 'the Assistant Commissioner may, on sufficient cause being shown to him, allow the manufacturer to take credit of the specified duties on capital goods paid by a contractor or job-worker who undertakes the job of initial setting up, renovation, modernisation or expansion of the plant on behalf of the manufacturer of final products, subject to such procedure and conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner or the Central Board of Excise and Customs'. The DG sets in question are power plants. WDIL was engaged for initial setting up of this captive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny merit. There can be no dispute that Excise has been paid on some of the company of the DGPP. Since the DGPP is exempt from payment of Excise duty but credit can be claimed by the manufacturer of the DGPP, in the present case WDIL. However, there is no dispute this this DGPP is part and parcel of the factory of the appellant. It is definitely a capital good and therefore rule 57Q is applicable. Rule 57Q enables a party to claim credit of duty paid on capital goods by the manufacturer of specified goods. Under serial No. five with table of the said rule, a manufacturer is entitled to claim what but credit on account of the Excise duty paid on the components, spares and accessories of the goods exempt. If duty is paid on the components used in its one fracture, we see no reason why the manufacturer cannot claim what but credit for such duty." 13. In a similar decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III vs NRC Ltd.,[2001(135)ELT 1012(Tri-Mum)] the Tribunal held as follows: "4. The grounds in the appeal run as follows. The assembly of the diesel generating sets from its components amounts to manufacture. The generating set so manufactured is exempted from du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more appropriate to say that these components were put together into a generating set for the manufacture of tyre cord and other final product. The explanation that the departmental representative tendered, if accepted, would in effect result in denying Modvat credit contrary to the provisions of law, in a very large number of cases. The definition of capital goods in the Table to Rule 57Q, includes components, spares and accessories of various machines, machinery, apparatus, appliances etc. specified therein. Every time any manufacture brings in a component to replace a damaged or worn out component in any of the machinery in its factory, it could be argued that the component it is not directly used in the manufacture of the final product. The component can also be said to be used to manufacture a machine in which it will be fitted as a replacement, that machine already exists even in the absence of the component. Therefore, none of the components would ever be continued to be used in the manufacture of any commodity and therefore could not be capital goods. The absurdity of this conclusion destroys the merits in the submission. 7. The second ground is also equally without meri....