9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost of operation and maintenance was to be borne by M/s.ALWEL. M/s.ALWEL was also responsible for the generation of electricity and they were in fact getting the windmills maintained and hence the appellant was in no way responsible for maintenance of windmills nor had they given any contract for doing so to M/s.ALWEL for operation and maintenance of windmills in question. A perusal of the above Agreement between the parties clearly indicates that the understanding was for supply of electricity and nowhere in the contract is it mentioned that M/s.ALWEL would be operating and maintaining the windmills on behalf of the Appellant. The fact however remains that the doubt in the minds of the Adjudicating Authority remains unanswered, which, goes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue appears to have noticed from the agreement dated 18.10.2010 between M/s.Hindujua Foundries Ltd. (the appellant herein, who is now named as Ashok Leyland Ltd.) and M/s.Ashok Leyland Wind Energy Limited (ALWEL, for short) for the purpose of wheeling of power from the windmills by M/s.ALWEL which was sold to the appellant on certain terms and conditions. In a nutshell, the view of the Revenue was that (i) the power generated from the windmills by M/s.ALWEL was sold to the appellant; (ii) the invoices raised for the amount worked out on the basis of number of units generated / supplied by the windmills and sold to appellant. 3.1 The above prompted issuance of 11 Show Cause Notices wherein it was proposed inter alia to recover input s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services were received outside the factory premises and that there is no dispute that the electricity generated by the windmills were, in fact, used in the manufacture of final products and payment of service tax for lease rentals and operation and maintenance charges of windmills was not in dispute and therefore, the input service credit would not be denied. Further, Ld. Advocate relies on the following judicial pronouncements : (i) CCE Cus., Aurangabad Vs Endurance Technology Pvt. Ltd. -- 2017 (52) STR 361 (Bom.) (ii) Parry Engg. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE ST Ahmedabad 2015 (40) STR 243 (Tri.--LB) (iii) Tribunal Final Order No.40281--40326/2015 dated 25.02.2015 which was upheld by Hon ble High Court as reported in CCE ST Chennai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence the appellant was in no way responsible for maintenance of windmills nor had they given any contract for doing so to M/s.ALWEL for operation and maintenance of windmills in question. A perusal of the above Agreement between the parties clearly indicates that the understanding was for supply of electricity and nowhere in the contract is it mentioned that M/s.ALWEL would be operating and maintaining the windmills on behalf of the Appellant. 9. Clause III Operative Mechanism of the above Agreement which is placed in the paper book (page 25 of the paper book) reveals the scope of work as under : a. the entire work of operation and maintenance of wind mills in good working condition and repairs shall be the sole responsibility of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
