Cenvat credit on electricity generation inputs is limited to captive factory use; penalty was deleted amid conflicting legal views.

Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used to generate electricity is confined to electricity consumed captively within the factory; credit is not admissible to the extent the electricity is wheeled out or otherwise cleared outside the factory. Applying the meaning of "captive use" under Rule 2(k) and the principle of noscitur a sociis, the substantive demand for reversal on wheeled-out electricity was sustained. However, penalty under Rule 15(1) was deleted because entitlement to credit on such electricity had remained under prolonged litigation with conflicting judicial views, so the conditions for equal penalty were not made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used for generation of electricity was admissible to the extent such electricity was wheeled out of the factory and not used captively. (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 15(1) was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used for generation of electricity was admissible to the extent such electricity was wheeled out of the factory and not used captively.

Analysis: Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit on goods used for generation of electricity for captive use. The expression 'captive use' was read to mean electricity consumed within the factory and not electricity transferred outside the factory or wheeled out for adjustment or distribution. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, the credit entitlement was confined to electricity used within the factory for manufacture of final products. The Court followed the ratio of the Supreme Court decisions that credit is not admissible to the extent electricity is cleared outside the factory.

Conclusion: Credit was admissible only to the extent electricity was used captively within the factory, and the demand for reversal of 6% on the value of electricity wheeled out was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 15(1) was sustainable.

Analysis: The eligibility of credit on inputs used in generation of wheeled-out electricity had remained the subject of prolonged litigation and conflicting judicial views. In such circumstances, the ingredients for imposition of equal penalty were not attracted.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 15(1) was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The substantive demand was sustained, but the penalty was deleted, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit on inputs used to generate electricity is confined to the extent the electricity is used within the factory for captive consumption, and not to the extent it is wheeled out or otherwise cleared outside the factory; penalty is not justified where the issue was under bona fide legal dispute and conflicting views existed.

---