2006 (2) TMI 591 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - rejection of refund application - Two units with in same factory - HELD THAT - It is clear from the record and submissions of both sides that there is only one juridical person in the present case i.e. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. There is no separate legal standing for the yarn manufacturing facility even though it is being referred to by the appellant as Mahabir Syntex. A perusal of the ground plan makes it clear that both lines of production are situated in the same factory premises and the generators are supplying electricity to both the lines of production. In this legal and factual situation the finding in the order that the two units are separate entities cannot be upheld. Claim for Modvat credit the specific provision in the Rule is for a manufacturer to take credit of duty paid on any input received in the factory . As we have already noted there is only one manufacturer with two lines of production and one factory. Therefore credit originally taken by the appellant was entirely in terms of the Rule and the lower authorities were in error in directing the appellant to return the credit amount. Thus the appeal succeeds and is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. Credit which was returned in cash by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant in cash.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit for LDO used in electricity generation for jute and yarn production lines.
2. Determination of separate entities for jute manufacturing and yarn spinning units.
3. Interpretation of CENVAT rules regarding manufacturer, factory, and Modvat credit eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a jute manufacturing company, installed a synthetic yarn spinning unit within its existing factory premises. They received LDO as an input for electricity generation, used in both jute and yarn production. The Central Excise authorities disputed the admissibility of Modvat credit for LDO, citing the generator's location in the jute manufacturing area, not the yarn unit.
2. The dispute centered on whether Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. and Mahabir Syntex were separate legal entities. The authorities rejected the Modvat credit claim based on separate Central Excise registrations for jute and yarn units. The appellant argued that legally, there was only one entity, Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., and the yarn unit was a mere division, not a distinct entity.
3. The legal interpretation of CENVAT rules was crucial. The appellant relied on Rule 57AB, emphasizing the term "manufacturer" taking credit for inputs received "in the factory." They argued that since there was only one manufacturer and one factory, Modvat credit should be allowed for inputs used in both production lines. Reference was made to a precedent where multiple registrations did not establish separate factories.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the factual and legal aspects, concluding that Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. was the sole juridical person, with no separate legal standing for the yarn unit. Both production lines shared factory premises and electricity from the same generators. Therefore, the finding that the units were separate entities was overturned.
5. Regarding Modvat credit eligibility, the Tribunal affirmed that as per the Rule, a manufacturer could claim credit for inputs used in the factory. Since there was only one manufacturer and one factory, the appellant's initial credit claim was valid. The lower authorities erred in directing the appellant to return the credit amount.
6. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside. The appellant was entitled to the return of the cash amount previously refunded.