<?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>2024 (2) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449151</link>
    <description>The amended CENVAT credit definition effective from 01.04.2011 was treated as materially broader than the pre-2011 regime considered in Maruti Suzuki. Electricity generated in a captive power plant and wheeled free of cost to sister units within the same group was held to satisfy the requirement of use for captive generation, even though it was not consumed at the exact location of generation. Credit could not be denied merely because the electricity moved through the grid to other group units, and the department&#039;s demand based on denial of such credit, including the 6% valuation approach, was unsustainable on the amended rule and facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449151</link>
      <description>The amended CENVAT credit definition effective from 01.04.2011 was treated as materially broader than the pre-2011 regime considered in Maruti Suzuki. Electricity generated in a captive power plant and wheeled free of cost to sister units within the same group was held to satisfy the requirement of use for captive generation, even though it was not consumed at the exact location of generation. Credit could not be denied merely because the electricity moved through the grid to other group units, and the department&#039;s demand based on denial of such credit, including the 6% valuation approach, was unsustainable on the amended rule and facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>