Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 88 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input - case of the Revenue is that as the appellant has yield out the excess electricity generated by them to the power grid, therefore, the electricity which has been transferred to the power grid, the input pertaining to the part of the electricity yield to power grid, they are not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit - Held that: - identical issue came up in appellants own case for the earlier period [2015 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Electricity sent for synchronization to power grid, would be treated as job worker. There is no dispute that the electricity was returned back to the Appellant s factory, and there is a substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules. The power grid charged 10% of the value of electricity for providing of synchronisation. The learned Advocate contended that the appellant was importing higher quantum of electricity other than the unit, that were being exported to the grid. So, it is not a case of sale of excess electricity generated in the captive power plant to the energy grid. The fact of the case is more clearly transpired from the order of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK [2008 (8) TMI 332 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that the demand on the ground that the inputs were used in generation of electricity which was cleared outside the factory of production is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|