9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 247 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - input service - capital goods - Furnace Oil / fuel used in the generation of electricity, part of which cleared to other unit and residential colony - denial on the ground that the part of electricity was used by the appellant s DTY division and also on the ground that the electricity to this extent was used in the residential quarters - period 2004-05 to 2007-08 - HELD THAT - Even though both POY unit and DTY unit are two division but both belongs to one single entity i.e. M/s Modern Syntex (I) Ltd., moreover both the units are located in the same premises, merely because both the units have separate central excise registration, it cannot be treated two separate entities, therefore, the cenvat credit on this ground cannot be denied. However the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit relying on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT which was subsequently referred to the Larger Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA VERSUS GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS COMPANY LTD. 2012 (12) TMI 437 - SUPREME COURT . Both sides have not brought on record regarding the outcome of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court as on date. The matter needs to be re-considered on the basis of the outcome of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA VERSUS GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS COMPANY LTD. 2012 (12) TMI 437 - SUPREME COURT . We also find that the appellant has made out a strong Prima facie case on limitation which also needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on furnace oil used in the generation of electricity. 2. Determination of whether the two divisions of the appellant constitute a single entity for availing Cenvat credit. 3. Consideration of suppression of facts and intention to evade Central Excise Duty. 4. Relevance of previous judgments in similar cases. 5. Decision on limitation period for the demand. Analysis: 1. The issue at hand involves the denial of Cenvat credit on furnace oil used for generating electricity, with a part of the electricity being utilized by the appellant's DTY division and residential quarters. The Tribunal found that both the POY unit and DTY unit belong to the same single entity, M/s Modern Syntex (I) Ltd., located on the same premises. Despite separate central excise registrations, they are not to be treated as two separate entities. The Tribunal noted the need for a re-consideration based on the outcome of a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in a related case, as the lower authorities had relied on a previous judgment. 2. The appellant argued that the POY Division and DTY Division, despite having separate registrations, are part of a single business entity, M/s Modern Petrofils. They contended that the furnace oil was used for electricity generation within the factory premises, and there was no formal sale agreement between the divisions. The Tribunal agreed that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the separate registrations was not justified, and the matter required re-consideration post the outcome of the Larger Bench judgment. 3. The Revenue contended that the appellant had suppressed facts regarding the manufacturing and supply of electricity to the DTY Division and residential colony. They invoked an extended period for the demand, alleging intentional evasion of Central Excise Duty. The Tribunal noted the need for a fresh adjudication considering the appellant's strong prima facie case on the limitation issue. 4. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments such as Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, and M/s GNFC to support the arguments presented by both sides. However, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of re-evaluating the matter based on the outcome of the Larger Bench judgment. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision within three months. The appeal was allowed for reconsideration based on the observations made during the hearing. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision.
|
