Page 135 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : JSW ENERGY LIMITED 461
 Sanghi Industries Limited v. CCE, Rajkot, 2006 (206) E.L.T. 575 (Tri. -
Del.)
 Sanghi Industries Limited v. CCE, Rajkot, 2014 (302) E.L.T. 564 (Tri. -
Ahmd.)
2. The above judgments cover instances where materials (such as naph-
tha, light diesel oil, furnace oil, etc.) were supplied to the job worker for carrying
out a specified process for the purpose of generation of electricity. The relevant
extract of the High Court decision in Indorama Textiles Ltd. (supra) is reproduced
below where the issues of generation of electricity under a job work model is not
even disputed by the Authorities -
“8. The fact of electricity being intermediate goods used in manufacture of final
product by Respondent No. 1 is not in dispute before us. It is nowhere contended
that M/s. IRSL cannot be a job worker and generation of electricity cannot be out-
sourced. When it can be outsourced, it also follows that Respondent No. 1 need not
have a captive power plant. Only contention is fuel oil is not received in facto-
ry of production or/and is not being used or processed any time within fac-
tory of production. It is apparent that said issue stands concluded by the
above-mentioned judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and there is no change
of law in this respect. It is also clear that inputs or raw material can be di-
rectly forwarded to job worker for production of intermediate goods. There
is no challenge to understanding/agreement between Respondent No. 1
and M/s. IRSL. We do not find anything perverse in findings recorded in
paragraph 6 of the order No. A/67/2007/EB-C-II, dated 31-1-2007 in Ap-
peal No. E/3701/05-Mum. These reasons hold good even for second mat-
ter.”
3. Further the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal petition filed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur against the order of the Hon’ble Bom-
bay High Court in the matter of Indorama Textiles Ltd. (supra) - Commissioner of
Central Excise, Nagpur v. Indorama Textiles Ltd., 2010 (260) E.L.T. A83 (S.C.).
Additional Submissions made by the Appellant with regard to the new grounds
taken up in the Appellate Order dated 2-7-2018, pursuant to the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court dated 7-6-2019
Coal is an input for the principal :
4. The Appellant submits that the Appellate Authority Order has en-
tirely failed to appreciate the essence of the transactions in light of the provisions
of law and erroneously concluded that coal and other inputs supplied to the Ap-
pellant do not constitute as inputs for the manufacture of steel for JSL. The Ap-
pellate Authority failed to appreciate that the definition of ‘inputs’ as defined
under Section 2(59) of the CGST Act is very wide. The said definition is repro-
duced as follows :
5. ’input’ means any goods other than capital goods used or intended
to be used by a supplier in the course or furtherance of business;
(Emphasis supplied)
6. For the said purpose, reliance is also placed on the term ‘business’
which is defined under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act. For the said purpose :
Business includes -
(a) Any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure,
wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuni-
ary benefit,
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  255