2008 (2) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Service tax credit paid on erection and commissioning of Wind Mills for generation of electricity situated away from the appellant s factory - It is admitted position that the electricity generated at the wind mill firm unit is not being supplied directly to the appellant, but is transferred to PGVCL, who are further supplying the same to the appellant - It cannot be said that the said wind mill firm unit is a part of the appellant s factory premises so as to allow credit of service tax paid in respect of services utilized at the wind mill firm house appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
Dispute regarding service tax credit for erection and commissioning of Wind Mills for electricity generation.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the service tax credit paid by a service provider for the erection and commissioning of Wind Mills for electricity generation, located at a considerable distance from the appellant's factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) extensively examined the facts and determined that the electricity generated at the wind mill was not directly consumed by the appellant but was transferred to M/s. Pacchim Gujarat Vidut Corporation Ltd. (PGVCL), a State Government company, which then supplied electricity to the appellant, accompanied by adjustments in the monthly electricity bills based on the units generated at the wind mill. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities' findings that the electricity from the wind mill was being supplied to PGVCL, and the electricity purchased by PGVCL was consumed by the appellant for their manufacturing processes. It was clarified that the wind mill unit was not considered part of the appellant's factory premises, thus disallowing the credit of service tax paid for services at the wind mill. The judgment also referenced a previous decision by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajhans Metals (P) Ltd., indicating consistency in the interpretation of similar issues. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

This case highlights the importance of direct consumption in determining eligibility for service tax credit, emphasizing that even if electricity is generated at a separate location, the crucial factor is whether it is directly consumed by the appellant. The judgment underscores that the transfer of electricity to an intermediary, like PGVCL in this instance, does not alter the consumption dynamics. The decision reinforces the principle that for service tax credit purposes, the actual consumption of the service by the appellant at their manufacturing facility is pivotal, irrespective of the electricity's origin or intermediary transfers. The reference to a previous Tribunal decision further solidifies the legal interpretation and application of service tax credit rules in similar contexts, ensuring consistency and predictability in judicial outcomes.