Case Details: Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Exciseahmedabad-III (2025) 37 Centax 126 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- Shri Anand Nainawati, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri B.L. Narasimhan & Neel P. Lakhani, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a petitioner-assessee, claimed Cenvat credit on input services relating to the operation, maintenance, erection, commissioning, and installation of captive windmills located approximately 450 kilometres away from its factory premises. The electricity generated by the windmills was supplied to the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB), which in turn supplied it to the assessee’s factory. The assessee contended that the services were input services eligible for Cenvat credit under Rules 2(i) and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and that the credit could not be denied merely because the services were received away from the factory or because the electricity was not itself excisable. The assessee’s claim had initially been rejected on these grounds. The matter was accordingly placed before the Gujarat High Court.
High Court Held
The Gujarat High Court held that input services must be construed broadly, and Cenvat credit is allowable where the manufacturer receives the benefit of such services for use in manufacturing, regardless of the location of receipt. The Court noted that the assessee used the electricity supplied by GEB, generated from the windmills, exclusively in manufacturing activity. The Court further observed that the statutory provisions do not mandate receipt of input services at the factory premises. Applying this reasoning and following its earlier decision in an appeal the Court allowed the Cenvat credit claimed by the assessee on services, capital goods, and inputs related to the windmills. The appeal was accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. — 2019 (369) E.L.T. 162 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Commissioner v. Endurance Technology Pvt. Ltd. — 2017 (52) S.T.R. 361 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Commissioner v. Excel Crop Care Ltd. — 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) — Referred [Paras 16, 17]
- Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2011 (273) E.L.T. 248 (Tribunal) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 320 (Tri. – Mumbai) — Referred [Para 16]
- Parry Engineering & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (40) S.T.R. 243 (Tribunal-LB) — Referred [Para 16]
- Rajhans Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2007 (8) S.T.R. 498 (Tribunal) — Referred [Paras 12, 13]
- Rajhans Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — R/Tax Appeal No. 1037 of 2008, decided on 13-11-2025 by Gujarat High Court — Applied [Para 20]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 [Para 18]
