<?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>2011 (4) TMI 437 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205838</link>
    <description>LSHS/LSWR used to generate electricity for captive internal consumption in auxiliary units did not qualify for exemption under notifications limited to fuel intended for generation of electrical energy for sale or external supply, because strict construction of exemption provisions excluded electricity not sold to others. The exemption was therefore unavailable on the quantity attributable to internal consumption. On limitation, the dispute turned on interpretation of the notifications and the expression &quot;intended for use&quot;; non-disclosure of the exact proportion of captive electricity use did not amount to wilful suppression, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 437 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205838</link>
      <description>LSHS/LSWR used to generate electricity for captive internal consumption in auxiliary units did not qualify for exemption under notifications limited to fuel intended for generation of electrical energy for sale or external supply, because strict construction of exemption provisions excluded electricity not sold to others. The exemption was therefore unavailable on the quantity attributable to internal consumption. On limitation, the dispute turned on interpretation of the notifications and the expression &quot;intended for use&quot;; non-disclosure of the exact proportion of captive electricity use did not amount to wilful suppression, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>