Order date – 01 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Planta (RSP) is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products.
• The Appellant in the course of its business operates furnaces and coke oven in its plant. The residue gas emanating from such furnace and coke oven is processed in coal chemical division which comprised of the Rourkela Fertiliser Plant (RFP). These two plants were of many divisions of the appellant and were not different manufacturing plants entire plant which included both SAIL-RSP and SAIL-RFP.
• During 2002-03, RFP received capital goods in the nature of spares, components and accessories involving Central Excise Duty of Rs.32,58,646/- and RFP availed 50% of the total CENVAT Credit i.e., Rs. 16,29,323/- during the year 2002-03. The remaining credit of Rs.16,29,323/- was availed by RSP in October 2003. However, the operation of RFP was stopped w.e.f 02.11.2002 and no production has been undertaken since then. RSP vide letters dated 25.08.2004 and 02.11.2004 also intimated the jurisdictional Commissioner, Rourkela regarding availment of RFP’s credit by RSP so that the same could be utilized. 
• A show-cause notice was issued on the ground that both the units of the Appellant were separate manufacturing units located at two different sites and separately registered with the Central Excise Department. Therefore, Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules is not applicable to the Appellant and hence availment of CENVAT Credit of the fertilizer plant by the Appellant is in contravention of Rule 4(2)(b) and Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
• Aggrieve appellant had filed an appeal

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant CENVAT credit availed on its both manufacturing units are in order ?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that Factory in terms of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act includes any number of inputs within the same premises irrespective of the number of Central Excise registrations. Thus there is no distinction between the Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP) and Rourkela Fertilizer Plant (RFP) and can be inferred as both are one and the same factory
• The Tribunal relied on the decision of Dhampur Sugar Mills Vs. CCE, Meerut wherein it was held that the number of different plants manufacturing different excisable goods in the same premises would constitute one factory. Their separate registration under Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would not mean that they are different factories. Different units to be regarded as one factory if all excisable goods are manufactured in the same premises. 
• Hence the appeal is allowed.