2012 (7) TMI 981 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - GTA services - case of appellant is that Coal so brought was used for generation of power and such power captivity consumed as well as part of the power so generated was transmitted to some of the own units of the appellant for use in manufacture, credit is not deniable - Revenue on the other hand says that when power was not fully utilised by the appellant in its factory, transmission thereof to other unit shall not grant any benefit of cenvat credit to the appellant - Held that - When admitted fact is that coal came to power plant site for use in generation of power and it came through the carrier suffering service tax, there is nothing to doubt on use of input for generation of power in the absence of contrary evidence. When coal became input and service tax has been paid to transport the coal, Revenue should have come out clearly spelling out quantum of coal used in generation of power for no use in manufacture or in relation to manufacture - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Claim of Cenvat credit on GTA service for transporting coal for power generation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on the transportation of coal for power generation. The appellant argued that since the coal was used for power generation and part of the power was transmitted to its own units for manufacturing, the Cenvat credit should not be denied.

2. The Revenue contended that if the power generated was not fully utilized in the factory, then the transmission of excess power to other units should not grant any Cenvat credit benefit to the appellant.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was observed that the adjudication order did not specify the amount of power that was not utilized in the factory. The order was vague in stating that the entire power was not used, without proper quantification of the unused power or any evidence of abuse of power.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a clear quantification of the coal used in power generation that was not utilized in manufacturing processes. Since the coal was established as an input for power generation and service tax was paid for its transportation, the Revenue should have provided a detailed explanation regarding the amount of coal that was not used for manufacturing purposes.

5. Due to the lack of a well-reasoned order and insufficient evidence to support the denial of Cenvat credit, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing clear and quantifiable reasoning in such cases to support any denial of credit.

6. The judgment was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. The case highlighted the significance of proper documentation and evidence to support claims and denials of tax credits in the context of service tax on transportation services for manufacturing inputs.