Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 inputs and goods transferred to a captive power plant housed within the factory premises, but owned by a joint venture entity, amounted to removal outside the factory so as to deny exemption or require reversal of credit.
Analysis: The factory premises of the assessee remained unchanged and no separate excise-licensed premises were created for the power plant. The electricity generated in the power plant was fully captively consumed in the assessee's manufacturing activity. On these facts, the power plant could not be treated as a separate factory for the purpose of denying the benefit claimed. The assessee's claim was also supported by the rule permitting such clearances and the exemption notification relied upon.
Conclusion: The transfer of inputs and goods to the captive power plant within the factory did not amount to removal outside the factory, and the assessee remained entitled to the benefit claimed.
Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were not sustainable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods transferred to a captive power plant located within the factory premises and used for captive generation of electricity do not constitute removal outside the factory merely because the plant is owned by another entity.