TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me point of time the electricity was also sold to MSEDCL, therefore for calculation purposes the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority but since in the case in hand there is no allegation of sale of electricity to MSEDCL in the show-cause notice therefore no remand is required. In yet another decision the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR VERSUS SHREE CEMENT LIMITED [ 2018 (9) TMI 822 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] where the facts were almost similar, while dismissing the Appeal filed by Revenue, held that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [ 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] will not apply and the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper that the cenvat credit of inputs and input services used in the power generated in the captive power plant and transferred to the sister concern is admissible to the assessee since the input and input services were ultimately used in the manufacture of dutiable final products either by the assessee or by their sister concern. The appellants are entitled to cenvat credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the cenvat credit taken on inputs and input services used for generating the electricity sold to MSEDL or transferred to its sister unit at Urse. When the appellant got to know about of a decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE; 2015(329) ELT 834 (Tri.-Del) that reversal of cenvat credit is not required on those inputs/input services which are used for generating electricity transferred to sister concern which is engaged in manufacturing activity they, w.e.f. January 2015, discontinued the reversal of cenvat credits on the inputs/input services used for generating electricity that was later on transferred to its sister concern at Urse and filed a written declaration with the jurisdictional authority as required u/r. 6(3A) ibid. 4. Not satisfied with the manner of calculation of the cenvat credit by the appellant, the department issued 4 (four) show cause notices to the appellant for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017 and denied the same on the ground that it is not in accordance with Rule 6(3) (ii) ibid. Out of the 4 show cause notices as aforesaid, only 2 are in issue herein which are for the period April, 2016 to September, 2016 and Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace during that period. Even the show cause notice has specifically recorded that during the period in dispute the appellants have not sold electricity to MSEDCL. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions/case laws placed on record. So far as the permission granted by learned Commissioner to the appellant is concerned, to opt for one of the options available u/r. 6(3) ibid is concerned, in my view the learned commissioner failed to appreciate that the same has already been submitted by the appellants way back on 28.3.2015 which has been relied upon in dropping the demand for the earlier period, as in the said communication it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant would follow similar formula in future also and therefore according to me no further deliberations are required on this issue. Otherwise also in Appellant s own case i.e. M/s. Finolex Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur [Excise Appeal No. 85489 of 2016] for the period 2010-11 to August, 2013 this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 85804/2023 dated 2.3.2023 has held that substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of its joint ventures, vendors etc. for a price and has also cleared such electricity in favour of the grid for distribution. To that extent, in our view, assessee was not entitled to CENVAT credit...... 7. In the case in hand there is no such allegation about sale of electricity in the show cause notices but authorities below have proceeded on the premise that during this period the appellant had sold the electricity to MSEDCL also. As per records, during the period in issue the electricity was supplied only to the sister unit at Urse and that too free of cost and in an identical situation this Tribunal in appellant s own case i.e. M/s. Finolex Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that no reversal needs to be made in respect of electricity supplied to their sister concern by the appellant. In that appeal at some point of time the electricity was also sold to MSEDCL, therefore for calculation purposes the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority but since in the case in hand there is no allegation of sale of electricity to MSEDCL in the show-cause notice therefore no remand is required. 8. In yet another decision the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, in the matter of Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
