<?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>2013 (9) TMI 937 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237505</link>
    <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit was admissible on furnace oil and other eligible inputs used in a common generator to produce electricity supplied to another unit of the same manufacturer. Rule 57AA treats as inputs goods used as fuel or for generating electricity used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose within the factory of production, and the provision was read as not restricting credit merely because the electricity was consumed by a separate unit within the same manufacturing establishment. The interpretation also aligned with the statutory notion of a factory as the premises where manufacturing is carried on. No statutory prohibition barred credit on this basis, so the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 937 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237505</link>
      <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit was admissible on furnace oil and other eligible inputs used in a common generator to produce electricity supplied to another unit of the same manufacturer. Rule 57AA treats as inputs goods used as fuel or for generating electricity used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose within the factory of production, and the provision was read as not restricting credit merely because the electricity was consumed by a separate unit within the same manufacturing establishment. The interpretation also aligned with the statutory notion of a factory as the premises where manufacturing is carried on. No statutory prohibition barred credit on this basis, so the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>