<?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>2014 (3) TMI 373 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244918</link>
    <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used to generate electricity was held admissible where the electricity was supplied within the same factory premises to the chemical plant and pump house, because separate registrations did not by themselves establish separate factories and the common manufacturing nexus was maintained. Credit was therefore retained for intra-factory use linked to manufacture of an intermediate product. By contrast, electricity supplied to the residential colony, club and hospital was outside the manufacturing process and did not qualify for input credit. Penalty under Section 11AC was not sustained, as the dispute involved interpretation and conflicting views, and was dropped.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 373 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244918</link>
      <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used to generate electricity was held admissible where the electricity was supplied within the same factory premises to the chemical plant and pump house, because separate registrations did not by themselves establish separate factories and the common manufacturing nexus was maintained. Credit was therefore retained for intra-factory use linked to manufacture of an intermediate product. By contrast, electricity supplied to the residential colony, club and hospital was outside the manufacturing process and did not qualify for input credit. Penalty under Section 11AC was not sustained, as the dispute involved interpretation and conflicting views, and was dropped.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>