9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peration conducted by the Central Excise Officials in steel plants of M/s Mukund Limited, M/s Kalyani Steels Limited and M/s Hospet Steels Limited and their Corporate offices found certain irregularities under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 29.11.2005 was issued stating interalia that the respondent holding Central Excise Registration No. AAACM 5008 R XM 004 for the manufacture of Alloy and Non-alloy Steel Billets, Blooms and Rounds and the company M/s.Kalyani Steels Limited having entered into a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" dated 16.05.1998 for the production of steel through integrated steel plant had entered into an agreement with anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emplated in the show cause notice. On receipt of their reply and personal hearing, the adjudicating authority i.e., the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, passed an Order-in-Original in C.No.V/72/15/76/2005 Adjn. Dated 31.07.2006 and confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit, ordered for appropriation of the amount paid by the respondent herein and imposed a penalty on the companies as well as their Executives except M/s.Praxiar India Limited. 4. Being aggrieved by the Order in Original, four appeals were filed by the respondent, two Officers working under the respondent and an Executive working under M/s.Hospet Steels Limited before the appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. The appellate auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for our consideration in this case is: 'Whether or not the alleged diversion of the gases and use of these gases by two companies and the CENVAT credit being availed only by the respondent herein is in violation of the Provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules?' 8. The Principal Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar case in CEA No.42/2011 which was disposed of on 19.06.2014. After referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court and particularly, the case of VIKRAM CEMENTS VS. CEE INDUSTRIES reported in 2006(194) ELT 3 (SC), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the definition of 'input' is to be construed as within the factory of production, if the assessee owns more than one unit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e input i.e., oxygen and nitrogen were used by both the companies. 10. The law on the point is no more res integra. In the light of the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of this Court in CEA No.42/2011 referred to supra, which we respectfully agree, it is well settled that a manufacturing unit can have one or more units to manufacture intermediary raw materials to manufacture a final product. In the instant case, by the Strategic Alliance Agreement, the corporate entities had entered into a joint venture agreement to manufacture steel products. The records disclose that whatever was manufactured by M/s.Kalyani Steels Limited in the ratio agreed to between the parties was finally made over to the respondent herein for manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
