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 electricity generated in the factory and sold in surplus attracts reversal/payment under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and whether the demand, interest, and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the appellant's own case and the principle that electricity generated from bagasse is not excisable goods and does not fall within the category of exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the facts, the appellant had already reversed the credit relatable to the inputs and input services used for generating the electricity sold outside, and the controversy was covered by the prior binding view on the same issue.
Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to pay 10% of the value of the electricity sold, and the demand, interest, and penalty were unsustainable.