CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Excise Appeal No. 41118 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 31/2017(Commr.)(CE) dated 30.11.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli –

620 001)

M/s. EID Parry India Limited ...Appellant Keel Arungunam Road, Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk – 607 105.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Trichy Commissionerate, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

And Excise Appeal No. 41127 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 32/2017(Commr.)(CE) dated 30.11.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli –

620 001)

M/s. EID Parry India Limited ...Appellant Pugalur, Karur District, Pugalur – 639 113.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Trichy Commissionerate, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Rajeev, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER Nos. 40391-40392 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 18.03.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The present appeals have been filed by M/s.

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against Orders-in-Original Nos. 31/2017 and 32/2017 dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned orders”).The appellant manufactures sugar, denatured ethyl alcohol and bio-compost and operates sugar units with captive co-generation plants within the factory premises. Electricity generated using bagasse during the sugar manufacturing process is partly consumed captively for manufacture of dutiable products and the surplus is wheeled out to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board grid and other locations. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used in manufacture, while certain services such as professional, consultancy, telephone and security services were used commonly for manufacturing activities as well as electricity generation.

1.2 On undertaking audit for the period from March 2015 to March 2016, the department noticed that part of the electricity generated in the COGEN Plant was wheeled out to the grid and other locations such as guest houses and corporate offices. Treating such electricity as “exempted goods”, the department alleged that the appellant had not maintained separate accounts for common inputs and input services as required under Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, show cause notices dated 27.04.2017 proposed recovery of 6% of the value of electricity cleared outside the factory under Rule 6(3)(i) along with interest and penalties. The appellant contended that proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to common input services had already been reversed under Rule 6(3A) along with applicable interest, amounting to Rs.3,68,433/- for the Nellikkupam Unit and Rs.4,32,565/- for the Pugalur Unit before the issue of SCN. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the said contention on the ground that the option under Rule 6(3A) had not been exercised within the prescribed time and consequently confirmed demands of Rs.2,43,26,716/- and Rs.2,61,92,637/-, along with interest and penalties, through the impugned orders.

2. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Raghav Rajeev, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and advanced detailed submissions in support of the Appeal and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar, appeared for the Revenue and defended the findings in the impugned orders.

4. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Raghav Rajeev made the following submissions which are summarised as bel