2018 (4) TMI 591 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - GTA Services - whether the respondent is entitled for CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service (used for transportation of coal to the power plant) and Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods procured by respondent and supplied to BPL for generation of power or otherwise? Held that - the respondent is eligible for the availment of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service and Central Excise duty paid on the input, and capital goods as there being no dispute that the power plant is within the factory premises and the factory premises defined under Section 2(a) of the Central Excise Act wherein it is defined as factory includes any premises including precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured. Order of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI would squarely apply in the case in hand, where it was held that the factory premises as licenced under Central Excise provisions in respect of the appellants continued to be unaffected and no separate Central Excise licence with de-marketed premises was given to the power plant separately. In such situation, the Revenue cannot take a stand that the power plant is another factory and not to be considered as within the factory of the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit by the respondent on tax paid on input service and duty paid on inputs and capital goods for a power plant.
2. Interpretation of factory premises and eligibility for CENVAT credit.
3. Dispute regarding the power plant ownership and its impact on CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the respondent's eligibility to avail CENVAT credit for service tax paid on GTA service and Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods used for a power plant. The lower authorities initially held the respondent ineligible for the credit, but the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent.

2. The main contention revolved around the ownership and functioning of the power plant within the factory premises. The Authorized Representative argued that the power plant belonged to a separate entity, making the respondent ineligible for credit. However, the Counsel highlighted that the power generation plant was installed in the same premises as the factory and cited precedents to support the argument that different plants within a factory can be considered as a single unit for excise purposes.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the factual matrix, emphasizing that the power plant was within the factory premises of the respondent and the power generated was consumed internally. Referring to legal definitions and previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to avail CENVAT credit based on the arrangement approved by the High Court and the usage of inputs and services within the factory premises.

4. Citing the judgments in the cases of Steel Authority of India Ltd and Dhampur Sugar Mills, the Tribunal reiterated that the power plant's location within the factory premises and the utilization of inputs for captive use supported the respondent's claim for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that it was legally sound and aligned with established legal principles.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the respondent's entitlement to CENVAT credit for the service tax and Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in the power plant. The judgment was pronounced on 22-03-2018, settling the dispute in favor of the respondent based on the legal and factual considerations presented during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →