2012 (7) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Whether Cenvat credit availed on input for generation of power bartered to Haryana State Electricity Board shall dis-entitle the appellant to such credit - Held that - As no cogent reason brought out by Revenue against motive of battering the power, appeals of Revenue is misconceived - against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing applications.
2. Dispute regarding Cenvat credit availed for power generation bartered to Haryana State Electricity Board.
3. Challenge against penalty and sustainability of adjudication order.

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment begins by addressing the issue of delay in filing applications, with no objection raised from the other side. The delay is condoned, and all four applications are allowed.

Dispute over Cenvat Credit:
The controversy in the appeals revolves around whether availing Cenvat credit for input used in power generation bartered to Haryana State Electricity Board would dis-entitle the appellant to such credit. The appellant cites a Division Bench order in its favor, which allowed Cenvat credit in a similar case. The learned Commissioner upheld the appeals of the respondent based on this precedent. The respondent's challenge was against the penalty, not the admissibility of Cenvat credit, as argued by the Revenue. The appellate authority considered the diverse grounds raised by the respondent in the appeal and found no merit in the Revenue's argument. The judgment emphasizes following consistency and dismisses the appeals of the Revenue due to the lack of cogent reasons against the motive of bartering power.

Challenge Against Penalty and Adjudication Order:
The respondent's challenge was primarily directed at the penalty and the sustainability of the adjudication order. The judgment highlights that the respondent's grounds in the appeal questioned the adjudication order's validity, rendering the Revenue's argument regarding the penalty without merit. As a result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is allowed.

In summary, the judgment addresses the issues of delay condonation, the dispute over Cenvat credit for power generation, and the challenge against the penalty and adjudication order. It upholds the appellant's right to Cenvat credit based on a previous Division Bench order and dismisses the Revenue's appeals due to lack of substantial reasons against the power bartering motive.