Page 149 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : JSW ENERGY LIMITED 475
60. The Appellant, relying on the above-mentioned circular issued by
the C.B.I. & C., has drawn an analogy to the effect that that the transaction in
question is squarely covered by the aforesaid example adopted in the above cited
circular. They further elaborated that, the example considered in the aforesaid
circular aluminium is similar to steel and has a similar manufacturing process.
Further, Inputs (such as coal) are used for the manufacture of power, which in
turn is used for the manufacture of steel. Therefore, the coal would qualify as
eligible inputs for the business activities of JSL.
61. The Appellant, so as to substantiate their contention with regard to
the eligibility of steam coal as input for JSL, the principal in the subject transac-
tion, also cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki
Ltd. v. CCE [2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)] reproduced hereinabove in para 17,
wherein it was held that when power generation is a captive arrangement and
the requirements for carrying out the manufacturing activity, the power genera-
tion forms part of the manufacturing activity and ‘Inputs’ used in the power
generation would be treated as inputs used in the manufacture of final product.
62. In view of the above submissions and contention put forth by the
Appellant in respect of the relevant legal provisions, C.B.I. & C. Circular, and the
Supreme Court Judgment, we are inclined to revise our earlier opinion, where
we had denied the eligibility of the coal as an input for JSL. Thus, in light of the
above submissions, it is adequately clear that coal is an input for JSL, as the same
is used for the generation of electricity, which in turn is used for the manufacture
of the final product i.e. steel.
63. Now, we will examine the contention put forth by the Appellant
with regard to the ‘new ground’ enumerated at sr. (ii) above, which is whether
the proposed arrangement would fulfil the conditions prescribed under section
143 of the CGST Act in relation to bringing back the inputs, from the job worker’s
premises, as the coal, proposed to be sent by JSL, the principal, to JEL, the Appel-
lant/job worker, would stand consumed and therefore, would be irretrievable in
the same form after the conclusion of the proposed job work.
64. In this regard, the Appellant had contended vide their additional
submissions filed on 22-6-2018 that resultant intermediate goods may be differ-
ent from the inputs sent by the Principal. To substantiate this contention, they
had cited following court judgments where job work has-been accepted even
when the identity of the inputs has been lost, when the intermediary goods are
received back from the job worker.
(a) Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex. Meerut, [1994 (73)
E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)]
(b) Appellate Collector of C.Ex. v. Wadpack Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 24
(S.C.)]
(c) Emcee Crown Corks (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. Bangalore [2002
(149) E.LT. 639 (Tri. - Bang.)
(d) Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. Collector [1997 (94) E.L.T.
A136].
65. They have further contended that electricity can be generated on a
job work basis. They had also cited the following judicial pronouncement in or-
der to support this contention :

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  269