2013 (10) TMI 794 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods scope of the term Factory - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The water treatment plant can be said to be part of the factory since the land has been rented by them and water treatment plant has been purchased by them and consequently the power is also used by them and besides fuel, gases which are not usable by the appellant are fed into the boilers - there is considerable force in the submission that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of CENVAT credit on the capital goods on a prima facie basis. Ongoing through the diagram submitted by the appellant, the water treatment plant is located in the southern side of M/s Gayathri Agro plant, which can be easily separated by a wall or a compound - the matter requires more detailed consideration especially in view of the fact that it involved consideration of definition of factory , the ground plan of the factory submitted by the appellant, statutory provisions relating to availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods which can be done at the time of final hearing - the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour on merits as well as the appellants have also pleaded financial difficulty, there shall be waiver of predeposit and stay against during the pendency of the appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Correction of errors in appeal memorandum and stay petition, denial of CENVAT credit for water treatment plant usage in factory, interpretation of 'factory' for CENVAT credit eligibility, prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay

The judgment addresses a miscellaneous application seeking correction of errors in the appeal memorandum and stay petition. The errors were related to facts and occurred during the filing process. The tribunal allowed the application for correction as proposed by the party.

Moving on to the stay application, the dispute arose from the denial of CENVAT credit exceeding Rs. 3.38 lakhs, based on the argument that the water treatment plant was not utilized in the appellant's factory. The appellant had installed the plant on the premises of a sister concern, with an agreement to rent the land where the plant was situated. The treated water from the plant was used in a boiler, along with waste gases from the appellant's company, to generate steam. The steam was then used by the sister concern, with excess power being sold to the State Grid. The revenue authority contended that the plant did not fulfill the requirement of being used in the appellant's factory, as it was located on the sister concern's land.

The tribunal considered the submissions and found merit in the argument that the water treatment plant could be considered part of the factory, given that the land was rented by the appellant, the plant was purchased by them, and the power generated was used by them. The tribunal noted the need for a more detailed examination of the situation, especially regarding the definition of 'factory,' the factory's ground plan, and statutory provisions related to CENVAT credit on capital goods. As the appellant presented a prima facie case in their favor and cited financial difficulty, the tribunal waived the predeposit requirement and granted a stay during the appeal's pendency.

The judgment, delivered by Shri B.S.V.Murthy, provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the correction of errors, denial of CENVAT credit, interpretation of 'factory' for credit eligibility, and the decision to grant a stay and waive predeposit based on the appellant's circumstances.

This summary captures the key issues addressed in the judgment and provides a comprehensive analysis of each aspect, maintaining the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.