TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on record that no part of the electricity has been used for manufacture of excisable goods since such plant was never set up. Electricity is not chargeable to any excise duty and falls within the definition of exempted goods in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, in terms of Rule 6(4), the cenvat credit availed is to be considered irregular and will be liable for recovery under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.53387/2014 - A/56558/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Bhishma Ahluwalia, C. A. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of electricity which stands wheeled out to the grid. Hence, Revenue was of the view that the cenvat credit will have to be reversed in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which provides that no cenvat credit shall be allowed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued and vide the impugned order, cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 5,13,70,707/- was ordered for recovery alongwith interest and penalty of amount equal to the cenvat credit disallowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. With this background, we heard Ms. Rinky Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efined under Rule 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly cenvat credit will be recoverable in terms of Rule 14 read with Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 7. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether credit availed on capital goods used to set up captive power plant can be denied on the ground that the capacity to manufacture dutiable goods was not set up within a few years. 8. As per the facts of the case, the original project of the appellant was to set up a captive power plant so as to generate power for use in the pig iron plant which was to be constructed simultaneously. However, it happened that only the captive power plant got set up but the factory for manufacture of excisable goods neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
