TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on fuel used for generation of electricity was admissible when the electricity was transferred to the State Electricity Board grid and equivalent power was received back under a wheeling arrangement. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether penalties were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on fuel used for generation of electricity was admissible when the electricity was transferred to the State Electricity Board grid and equivalent power was received back under a wheeling arrangement.
Analysis: The applicable credit provisions required the input to be used in or in relation to manufacture of final products within the factory of production. The arrangement with the electricity board showed that the electricity generated in the captive plant was injected into the grid and the electricity used in the factory was received separately from the grid. On the facts found, the electricity generated was not used within the factory for manufacture, and the transfer to the grid amounted to a transfer for consideration in the nature of sale or exchange. The settled principle applied was that credit is available only to the extent inputs are used for electricity actually consumed in the factory, and not for electricity wheeled out or supplied to the grid.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit was not admissible to the extent of fuel used for electricity transferred to the grid, and the denial of credit on that portion was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether penalties were sustainable.
Analysis: The dispute was one of interpretation of the credit scheme, and the record showed the department was aware of the captive power arrangement. The assessee had a bona fide basis for its understanding of the law, and no reliable material established suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or collusion with intent to evade duty. In that setting, the extended period could not be invoked and the penal consequences did not survive.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and penalties were not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties were set aside only to the extent they rested on the extended period and penal action, while the credit denial on electricity wheeled out to the grid was sustained, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit on fuel used to generate electricity is allowable only to the extent the electricity is actually used within the factory of production for manufacture of final products, and not for electricity transferred or wheeled out to the grid; where the dispute is interpretational and departmental knowledge is established, the extended period and penalties are not sustainable absent suppression or fraud.
TaxTMI 
