https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113573 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because electricity generated from those goods was partly used in the factory and the surplus was sold to the State Electricity Board. The second proviso to Rule 57R(2), as it stood before omission on 1-9-1996, did not impose any express requirement that the electricity must be exclusively consumed within the factory. On a plain reading, no implied exclusive-use condition could be read into the proviso. The assessee therefore established a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. en-us Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2012 18:18:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113573 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because electricity generated from those goods was partly used in the factory and the surplus was sold to the State Electricity Board. The second proviso to Rule 57R(2), as it stood before omission on 1-9-1996, did not impose any express requirement that the electricity must be exclusively consumed within the factory. On a plain reading, no implied exclusive-use condition could be read into the proviso. The assessee therefore established a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113573