2006 (9) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant demanded for credit on the capital good used in the power plant In the SCN alleged that contravention of rules by appellant in having availed the said credit of duty After considering all the fact authority allow the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Registration of manufacturer under Central Excise Rules, eligibility of Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs, inclusion of Power Plant in Ground plan, disallowance of credit by Commissioner, applicability of Rule 57AA and Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.

Analysis:

The appellant, a metallurgical coke manufacturer, applied for registration under Central Excise Rules to manufacture various excisable goods. They procured capital goods during the project period, filed necessary intimations, and took credit on capital goods and inputs. The Captive Power Plant, intended for own use and for sale to a sister unit, was not initially included in the Ground plan. Despite requests for modification, the Superintendent did not include the Power Plant in the plan. The appellant accumulated credit on capital goods, leading to a Show Cause Notice alleging contravention of rules and disallowing the credit.

The Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty based on the grounds that inputs and capital goods should be received and used in the factory of manufacture, and the Power Plant primarily served the sister unit. However, the Tribunal found that the Power Plant being outside the Coke Oven Plant premises did not disentitle the capital goods credit. As long as the Power Plant was used to generate electricity for manufacturing in the Coke Oven Plant, credit eligibility was upheld. The Tribunal held that the power being meant for use by the sister unit did not affect credit eligibility, as power must be utilized and cannot be stored.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting capital goods credit while not addressing the eligibility of input credit. The penalty imposed was set aside, deeming the credit on capital goods as eligible. The judgment emphasized the technological necessity of rolling out power and the importance of utilizing it gainfully. The decision was pronounced on 4-9-2006, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant.