TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here 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 electric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng more power from the power grid and yielding the electricity less and paying the electricity charges to the electricity board. Therefore, they are entitle for the Cenvat Credit on the electricity generated in their factory in captive power plant. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. Heard the parties and considered the fact that the identical issue came up in appellants own case for the earlier period reported in 2015 (329) ELT 302 (Tri. Del.), wherein this Tribunal held as under:- 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant set up a power plant in their factory for captive consumption. HSEB by letter dated 30-11-1998, permitted the appellant for parallel operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher 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 vide Final Order dated 21-8-2008 as under :- 5. We find that the appellants availed credit in respect of inputs used in generation of electricity. The appellants entered into agreement with the State Electricity Board termed as Wheeling Agreement by which the appellants were permitted to clear electricity generated in the captive power plant and simultaneously to receive equal quantity of electricity from the Electricity Board. The fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
