<?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 (9) TMI 61 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1270</link>
    <description>Capital goods credit was treated as admissible for machinery installed in a captive power plant situated outside the coke oven plant premises, because the power facility formed part of the assessee&#039;s manufacturing arrangement and was used to generate electricity for its own manufacturing operations. The statutory concept of factory, the registration guidelines and ground plan details, and the operational necessity of power generation supported eligibility; intended supply of some power to a sister unit did not, by itself, defeat credit. As denial of credit was unsustainable on the facts, the consequential penalty was also set aside. The claim for input credit was not pressed and remained undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 61 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1270</link>
      <description>Capital goods credit was treated as admissible for machinery installed in a captive power plant situated outside the coke oven plant premises, because the power facility formed part of the assessee&#039;s manufacturing arrangement and was used to generate electricity for its own manufacturing operations. The statutory concept of factory, the registration guidelines and ground plan details, and the operational necessity of power generation supported eligibility; intended supply of some power to a sister unit did not, by itself, defeat credit. As denial of credit was unsustainable on the facts, the consequential penalty was also set aside. The claim for input credit was not pressed and remained undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>