C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-Ii vs M/S. J K Cement Works

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 195(OPD)CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 08.01.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-II .Appellants

Vs.

M/s. J K Cement Works .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Appellant

Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 17.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52002/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order seeking denial of Cenvat credit on pet coke which was used for generation of electricity by the sister unit of the respondent which in turn sent the electricity to the respondent which was ultimately used in the manufacture of final product.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is manufacturer of cement. To manufacture cement, electricity is being used. For generation of electricity, the respondent procured pet coke which was sent to their sister unit for generation of electricity. Electricity so generated was received by the respondent which in turn is used in manufacture of final product i.e. cement. Revenue is of the view that pet coke which has been used in the generation of electricity outside the factory premises, the respondent is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on pet coke. Therefore the case was booked against the respondent and Cenvat credit was denied along with interest. Consequently, duty was demanded along with interest and penalty equivalent to the duty was imposed. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE [2006 (197) ELT 97 (Tri-Del)] Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Cenvat credit. Against that order, Revenue is before me.

3. Heard the parties.

4. In the respondents own case for the earlier period vide final order No. A/51489/2015-EX(SM) dated 06.04.2015 this Tribunal has observed in para 7 as under:

Further, I find that in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the identical issue was before this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal has held that naphtha, as such or after being partially processed, sent to power plant and raw material used by the power plant for generation of electricity; said electricity is sent to the principal manufacturer. On such inputs sent to the job worker, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Similarly, in the case of pet coke which has been sent by the respondent to their sister unit for manufacturing of electricity which ultimately has been used by the respondent for manufacturing of their final product, i.e. cement. Therefore, the respondent has qualified for entitlement of Cenvat credit as per Rule 2 (k) of the CCR, 2004. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

5. Therefore, I hold that respondent is entitled to take Cenvat Credit as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/51288/2014-EX(SM)