<?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>2018 (3) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356477</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used to generate electricity is confined to electricity consumed captively within the factory; credit is not admissible to the extent the electricity is wheeled out or otherwise cleared outside the factory. Applying the meaning of &quot;captive use&quot; under Rule 2(k) and the principle of noscitur a sociis, the substantive demand for reversal on wheeled-out electricity was sustained. However, penalty under Rule 15(1) was deleted because entitlement to credit on such electricity had remained under prolonged litigation with conflicting judicial views, so the conditions for equal penalty were not made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:01:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356477</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used to generate electricity is confined to electricity consumed captively within the factory; credit is not admissible to the extent the electricity is wheeled out or otherwise cleared outside the factory. Applying the meaning of &quot;captive use&quot; under Rule 2(k) and the principle of noscitur a sociis, the substantive demand for reversal on wheeled-out electricity was sustained. However, penalty under Rule 15(1) was deleted because entitlement to credit on such electricity had remained under prolonged litigation with conflicting judicial views, so the conditions for equal penalty were not made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>