<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (4) TMI 451 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122475</link>
    <description>Naphtha used as fuel in a factory for generating electricity was treated as an eligible input for Modvat/Cenvat credit because it fell within the inclusive definition of input and no separate nexus with the final product was required once the fuel was received in the factory and not removed as such. The restriction relating to inputs used in exempted goods was held inapplicable, as electricity was not treated as exempted goods under the relevant rules. Credit was therefore not denied merely because part of the electricity was wheeled out to another unit, and the related penalty could not stand. The dissent would have denied credit on the portion attributable to supply to a sister concern, while setting aside penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:04:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 451 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122475</link>
      <description>Naphtha used as fuel in a factory for generating electricity was treated as an eligible input for Modvat/Cenvat credit because it fell within the inclusive definition of input and no separate nexus with the final product was required once the fuel was received in the factory and not removed as such. The restriction relating to inputs used in exempted goods was held inapplicable, as electricity was not treated as exempted goods under the relevant rules. Credit was therefore not denied merely because part of the electricity was wheeled out to another unit, and the related penalty could not stand. The dissent would have denied credit on the portion attributable to supply to a sister concern, while setting aside penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>