Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 57CC applied where steam generated with common inputs was partly captively consumed and partly sold outside the factory for consideration, and whether relief could be claimed under Rule 57B(i)(iv) or Rule 57D(1).
Analysis: The requirement under Rule 57CC(1) read with sub-rule (9) was treated as mandatory where common inputs were used for both dutiable and exempted outputs or where the output generated from such inputs was not wholly confined to captive use. The earlier decision relied upon by the assessee was distinguished because it proceeded on a factual premise of captive use within the factory, whereas the present case involved clearances of steam outside the factory for value. The reasoning in the later Supreme Court decisions was applied to hold that once the process and use nexus is broken by sale outside the factory, credit is not admissible to that extent and Rule 57D cannot dilute the obligation to maintain separate accounts under Rule 57CC.
Conclusion: Rule 57CC applied, the assessee was not entitled to the claimed protection, and the order of the adjudicating authority was restored in favour of Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where inputs used to generate steam or electricity are employed for both captive use and external sale for consideration, the credit entitlement is governed by Rule 57CC and is not saved by Rule 57D; the assessee must comply with the mandatory separate-accounting requirement, and credit is inadmissible to the extent of the outside clearance.