JUDGMENT : (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.) The instant excise appeal is preferred by the appellant, namely, Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “the appellant Company”) being aggrieved with the decision dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) in Excise Appeal No.75336/2018 whereby the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Company against the order dated 26.10.2017 issued by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Commissioner”). 2. This Court, on 03.12.2020, framed the following substantial question of law for appropriate answer: “Whether the gas plant located at Duliajan belonging to the appellant, which supplies gas for manufacturing polymers at Lepetkata forms part of the manufacturing unit at Lepetkata so as to enable appellant to claim Cenvat Credit on capital goods installed at Duliajan?” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Company was formed as a Central Public Sector Undertaking at Dibrugarh as a Joint Venture of M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited, OIL India Limited (OIL), Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) and Government of Assam, having its registered office at Guwahati. The appellant Company is manufacturing and selling various grades of dutiable polypropylene. The main manufacturing unit of the appellant Company is located at Lepetkata, Dibrugarh, Assam, whereas its associated units are located at Duliajan, Lakwa and Tinsukia wherein certain activities relating to manufacture of final product are being undertaken. 4. The Duliajan Unit is a gas compression and dehydration unit where they purchase natural gas from OIL India Limited and after compressing and dehydrating the gas, transfer it to their Lepetkata Unit through a 18 inch pipe for use in manufacture of polymers which are the final products. The gas which is left after manufacture, known as ‘Lean Gas’, is again sent by the manufacturing unit at Lepetkata to Duliajan Unit which pumps back the same to OIL India Limited. The distance between Lepetakata Unit and Duliajan Unit is 48 Km. 5. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Dibrugarh, issued a registration certificate under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for Lepetkata Unit and the same was renewed from time to time. The distance between Lepetakata Unit and Duliajan Unit is 48 Km. 5. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Dibrugarh, issued a registration certificate under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for Lepetkata Unit and the same was renewed from time to time. Since at Duliajan Unit, the appellant Company is only compressing and dehydrating the gas and no final product is being manufactured, the appellant Company was desirous to get one registration for Lepetkata Unit and Duliajan Unit for the purpose of availing CENVAT Credit on capital goods (both domestic and imported) installed at Duliajan Unit and also to avail CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid for input service at Duliajan Unit. In the said process, a request was made on behalf of the appellant Company to the Superintendent , Central Excise, Dibrugarh to include the Duliajan Unit and other units situated at Lakwa and Tinsukia in the said Registration. The said request was refused by the Superintendent, Central Excise. Then the appellant Company had approached the Commissioner. However, the said authority, vide letter dated 26.10.2017 conveyed the appellant Company about the decision that the request made by the appellant Company for single registration of Duliajan Unit and Lepetkata/Lawka Unit was not accepted and therefore, it was not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on capital goods which were used in Duliajan Unit. Along with the letter dated 26.10.2017, a communication dated 26.09.2017 is also annexed wherein it is mentioned that the request of the appellant Company for issuing single Registration for Lepetkata Unit and Duliajan Unit is not accepted and the appellant Company is also not entitled to claim CENVAT Credit on capital goods which is used at Duliajan Unit as the same is not registered. 6. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Commissioner, the appellant Company approached the Appellate Tribunal by way of filing an appeal, being Excise Appeal No.75336/2018. 7. The Tribunal framed two issues for determination, which are reproduced hereunder:- “(a) Whether they are eligible for common registration for their Duliajan plant and Lepetkata plant by inclusion of the former in their registration certificate already issued for the latter. (b) Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the capital goods received in their Duliajan plant based either on common registration or irrespective of the registration.” 8. (b) Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the capital goods received in their Duliajan plant based either on common registration or irrespective of the registration.” 8. Both the issues were decided against the appellant Company by the Tribunal while concluding that one registration for separate units which are situated at different places, cannot be issued because the Duliajan Unit is not a manufacturing unit and, therefore, CENVAT Credit on capital goods (both domestic and imported) cannot be availed for Duliajan Unit. 9. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Company is claiming that the Duliajan Unit is a captive unit of the main plant situated at Lepetkata having been owned and controlled by the main plant constituting one integrated unit forming part thereof. 10. It is contended on behalf of the appellant Company that it is true that at the Duliajan Unit, natural gas purchased from the OIL India Limited is compressed and dehydrated and thereafter, transferred to Lepetkata Unit through pipelines but the fact remains that in the Duliajan Unit, no final product is manufactured and the same is manufactured at Lepetkata Unit only. It is further contended that the gas supplied by the Duliajan Unit is the raw material on the basis of which the final product is manufactured at Lepetkata Unit. It is not possible to manufacture the final product without the gas which is being supplied by the Duliajan Unit. 11. It is submitted that the Duliajan Unit is supplying/transferring the gas only to the Lepetkata Unit and not to any other manufacturing unit and being a captive plant of the manufacturing plant, it is supposed to be treated as a part of the manufacturing unit. 12. It is argued on behalf of the appellant Company that the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal has illegally refused to allow the benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods used at Duliajan Unit while treating the Duliajan and Lepetkata Units as separate units. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant Company has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in (i) Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) ; (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement Limited, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 724 ; (iii) Vikram Cement Vs. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant Company has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in (i) Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) ; (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement Limited, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 724 ; (iii) Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) ; (iv) Madras Cements Limited Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. , Chennai, reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) as well as on the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, rendered in Commissioner of C.Ex. Coimbatore Vs. Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd., reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 455 (Mad.) . It is argued that in the above referred decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that if any material is supplied for the purpose of manufacturing the final product, it is irrelevant that the same is supplied by a plant or factory not situated in the manufacturing plant but even if a raw material is supplied from a plant which is far from the manufacturing unit, the same is liable to be treated as part of the manufacturing unit. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Company has, therefore, prayed that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal be answered in the affirmative and the appeal filed by the appellant Company be allowed. 15. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Sr. S.C., CBDT, IT (NER), appearing for the respondent-Revenue has vehemently opposed the appeal and has argued that the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner has rightly rejected the request of the appellant Company for availing CENVAT Credit on capital goods (both domestic and imported) used at the Duliajan Unit because the said Unit is situated around 48 Km away from the manufacturing unit which is situated at Lepetkata and also because no final product is being produced at Duliajan Unit. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Keyal has invited our attention towards the order passed by the Commissioner dated 26.09.2017 [annexed as Annexure 3 to the appeal] and argued that from the Circular dated 16.10.2008, which was relied by the Commissioner, it is clear that the CENVAT Credit can be taken only on the inputs/capital goods which are used in registered premises where actual manufacturing takes place and not on capital goods/inputs at any other station. The copy of the Circular dated 16.10.2008 is placed for perusal. 17. Mr. Keyal has, therefore, submitted that there is no force in this appeal and as such, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is liable to be answered in the negative. 18. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 19. It is not in dispute that no final product is being manufactured at Duliajan Unit. The plant situated at Duliajan Unit, is procuring gas from the OIL India Limited and after compressing and dehydrating it, is transferring the same to the Lepetkata Unit, located 48 Km away, through a 18 inch pipe and the said compressed and dehydrated gas is being used for manufacturing the final product i.e. polymers. The gas which is left after manufacturing, known as ‘lean gas’, is again sent by the manufacturing unit at Lepetkata to Duliajan Unit which pumps it back to the OIL India Limited. 20. The Revenue has not contradicted the claim of the appellant Company that the Lepetkata Unit is manufacturing the final product, polymers, while treating the compressed and dehydrated gas supplied from the Duliajan Unit. In other words, the final product cannot be manufactured in absence of the compressed and dehydrated gas which is being supplied by the Duliajan Unit. 21. The Revenue has also not contradicted the stand of the appellant Company that the Duliajan Unit is a captive plant of the Lepetkata Unit where the final product is manufactured and the Duliajan Unit is also not supplying the gas to any other firm or entity manufacturing similar products but is only supplying gas to the Lepetkata Unit. 22. The Madras High Court in likewise situation has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal in Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd. (supra) allowing the assessee to avail Modvat credit in respect of capital goods used in the ancillary plant supplying the raw material to the manufacturing unit. 22. The Madras High Court in likewise situation has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal in Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd. (supra) allowing the assessee to avail Modvat credit in respect of capital goods used in the ancillary plant supplying the raw material to the manufacturing unit. The relevant portion of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Habasit Iakoka (P) Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereunder: “ 3 . The respondent assessee availed Modvat credit in respect of capital goods used in the manufacture of a Leather Nylon Sandwitch Betlings in its registered factory. By order dated 12-6-2000, the original authority held that the respondent had two units namely (1) Central Excise registered factory producing excisable final products and (2) another unit called Mother Roll Plant which was not registered under the Central Excise Rules; that they purchased capital goods and installed in their registered factory and took the credit of duty paid thereon; that subsequently for want of space, they shifted the machinery to their another Unit namely Mother Roll Plant which was situated 500 mts away from the registered unit and that at the time of removal of capital goods, they neither obtained permission nor reversed the credit of duty taken on the said capital goods. The department reversed the credit amount of Rs.87,976/-. The claim made by the respondent assessee for refund of the said amount was on the ground that the capital goods installed in their Mother Roll Plant was eligible for the credit of duty inasmuch as the said plant process the goods of the registered factory. The original authority rejected the claim by holding that 57Q(1) stipulated that the capital goods should be installed in the place of manufacture of final products and not in the place outside the place of manufacture of final products. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the original authority. The respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal by impugned order dated 15.10.2004 allowed the appeal and directed for refund to be sanctioned. Before passing the impugned order, the Tribunal called for the report of the Commissionerate. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the original authority. The respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal by impugned order dated 15.10.2004 allowed the appeal and directed for refund to be sanctioned. Before passing the impugned order, the Tribunal called for the report of the Commissionerate. The Tribunal, after noting the findings contained in the report of the Commissioner held that the Mother Roll Plant is for all practical purposes, part of the appellants main factory and it can be reasonably held that the subject capital goods were used by the respondent in the factory of production of final products and therefore, it was entitled to avail Modvat credit of duty paid thereon under Rule 57Q. 4. To appreciate the above conclusion, we feel it appropriate to extract a part of the order of the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 which reads as under: “What is contained in the report of the Commissionerate. Salient points in the report are the following : (i) The ‘Mother Roll Plant’ is a separate unit of the appellants and in this unit, processes connected with the manufacture of Leather Nylon Sandwitch Beltings are undertaken. The capital goods in question are used for this activity in the Mother Roll Plant. (ii) All the processes being carried out in the Mother Roll Plant are only for the purpose of manufacturing activity in the main factory and not for any other purpose. (iii) The Mother Roll Plant is solely owned by the appellants and all the machines installed therein, the electric connection thereto etc., are all in the name of the appellants. The manufacturing facility installed in the Mother Roll Plant is not available in the main factory. (iv) The Mother Roll Plant is run, controlled and supervised by the workers and staff of the main factory. (v) The Mother Roll Plant is neither registered under the Sales Tax Act nor under the Factories Act. It is been exempted from licence control under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Going by the above report of the Department, I have to hold the Mother Roll Plant, is for all practical purposes, a part of the appellants’ main factory. Whether it is included in the main factory plan is a concern of the department and this aspect can be separately taken care of by them. 5. Going by the above report of the Department, I have to hold the Mother Roll Plant, is for all practical purposes, a part of the appellants’ main factory. Whether it is included in the main factory plan is a concern of the department and this aspect can be separately taken care of by them. For the present, I can reasonably state (sic) that the subject capital goods were used by the appellants in the factory of production of final products and, accordingly, the appellants were entitled to avail Modvat credit of the duty paid thereon, under Rule 57Q. The decision in Thermax Ltd. (supra) is in firm support of this view. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice, the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T= 2007(8) S.T.R. 318 (Tribunal) Pooja Forge Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, wherein the Tribunal, in the circumstances, has taken a similar view in tune with the vies of the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal. 6. Going by the above finding of the Tribunal, we are also convinced that there was no violation of Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, Rule 57Q(1) reads as under: “(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to goods (hereafter in this section, referred to as the “final products”) described in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, used in the factory of the manufacturer of final products.” 7. There is no dispute that the capital goods involved hereunder is one of the capital goods falling within the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and used for the manufacture of the final products. Therefore, the only other question to be examined is whether the respondent has satisfactorily established the condition namely that the said capital goods were used in the factory for the manufacture of final products. The salient points noted in the report establishes beyond doubt that except the fact that the capital goods were used in the respondent’s own premises situated just 500 mts away from the place of manufacture and that after carrying out necessary connected processes in that premises which is called as Mother Roll Plant, the same is brought to the place of manufacture where the final products is rolled out. Therefore, the activity of the respondent in the usage of the capital goods can be said to be part of its manufacturing activities of final product in its registered factory. It is also not the case of the appellant that by usage of the capital goods in the Mother Roll Plant, the same was in any way alienable to any one, other than the respondent factory. 8. The salient points noted in the report of the Commissioner established beyond doubt that the capital goods were used in the factory of the respondent for the purpose of manufacture of final products. When the above said conclusion was inevitable, as held by the Tribunal, the respondent was entitled to avail Modvat credit duty paid on the capital goods concerned. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The question of law is therefore, answered in the negative and the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No.10540 of 2005 is closed.” 23. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which the learned counsel for the appellant Company has placed reliance also deal with more or less similar situation as arisen in this excise appeal. 24. In the present case also, the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, in para No.2 of its order dated 26.09.2017 has noted the fact that the main unit of the appellant Company is located at Lepetkata whereas associated facilities are situated at different locations. Para No. 2 of the order dated 26.09.2017, which narrates the facts about the appellant units after due verification, is reproduced hereunder: “2) During verification of the claim it appeared that the main plant of BCPL is located at Lapetkata along with some establishment/associated facilities at other places within the state as under: 1. Gas Sweetening and C2+ Recovery Unit at Lakwa, (Manufacture Excisable Product, i.e. C2+ Liquid & a separate registration has already obtained under pre-GST regime. 2. Gas Dehydration Unit at Duliajan; (Compressor & pipelines are intractably linked to Main Lepetkata plant for Supply of Rich Gas and return of lean gas to Oil India) 3. Naptha unloading facilities at Tinsukia Gaon (Railway siding is set up to upload Naptha (input) for Main Lepetkata Plant.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25. Now we examine the Circular dated 16.10.2008, relied upon by the counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Keyal as well as by the Commissioner. Naptha unloading facilities at Tinsukia Gaon (Railway siding is set up to upload Naptha (input) for Main Lepetkata Plant.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25. Now we examine the Circular dated 16.10.2008, relied upon by the counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Keyal as well as by the Commissioner. It is apposite to quote the relevant portion of the Circular dated 16.10.2008: “Circular No.875/13/2008-CX dated 16.10.2008 Issue pertaining to CNG manufacturers Representations were received from manufacturers of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as well as filed formations requesting for single registration facility, and clarification on the availability of CENVAT credit, etc. These issues have been examined and the decision taken in this regard are discussed below. ………………………. 3. Availability of CENVAT credit :- In the case of CNG manufacturers, central excise registration is to be given only in respect of those premises, where CNG is actually manufactured i.e. where compressor is stalled to convert natural gas into CNG. Registration is not to be given for premises where CNG is merely dispensed (commonly known as daughter stations) after being transported in mobile cascades. Accordingly, the CENVAT credit can be taken only on those inputs/capital goods, which are used in registered premises, where actual manufacturing takes place, and not on capital goods goods/inputs at daughter station. The legal position holds good for the period prior to the amendment also. 4. ……………………… ……………………………..” 26. Having taken note of the above part of the Circular, we are of the considered view that reliance on the same by the Revenue is misplaced for following reasons: Firstly, because this circular applies to the manufacturers of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) only and secondly, it deals with a situation, wherein the final product i.e. CNG is transported to the other stations. The present case is not a case of transportation of final product but transfer of raw material to the main unit by an ancillary unit for the purpose of manufacturing the final product. 27. Taking into consideration the above fact situation, we are of the view that the substantial question of law framed in this excise appeal is required to be answered in the affirmative and it is, accordingly, held that the appellant Company is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on capital goods (both domestic and imported) installed at Duliajan Unit. 28. With the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.