DIAMOND CEMENTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three appeals, filed by M/s. Diamond Cements, the issue relates to the availability of Cenvat Credit.

(2.) SHRI B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants have two units, which are adjacent to each other, both engaged in the manufacture of cement; that they have installed a D.G. Set in their factory in Diamond -I; that they have taken Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on LDO, which is used as fuel and on the lubricating oil which is used for maintenance of the D.G. sets and also on the cleanflo which is an item used for demineralisation of the water; that a portion of the electricity, so generated in the D.G. set in Diamond -I, is supplied to Diamond -II; that the Revenue has denied Cenvat Credit on the items used as fuel for generating electricity on the ground that a portion of the electricity is supplied outside the factory; that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 (T) that number of different plants manufacturing different excisable goods in same premises would constitute one factory and their separate registration would not mean that they are different factories; that no doubt, the Supreme Court has admitted the Revenue's appeal against this decision, but the Supreme Court has not granted any stay; that the decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2002 (150) E.L.T. 296 (T), is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as in the said decision the capital goods were installed in other unit; that moreover, though the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) was relied upon in A.C.C. Ltd., the learned Single Member has not discussed the same. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2002 (150) E.L.T. 383 (T), wherein paperboard division and paper division being situated in same premises is regarded as one factory.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate also submitted that Cenvat credit has also been disallowed to them on the ground that the invoices, under which the inputs were not valid duty -paying documents inasmuch as M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jhansi were not registered dealers; that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jhansi are duly registered with the Department. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate submitted that the registration Certificate No, 06/Registered Dealer/R -III/99 was issued by the Superintendent (Central Excise) Range -III/ Jhansi.