2006 (2) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ectricity supplied to the residential colony/town ship of the appellants. He has also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs in respect of the impugned furnace oil, which was not available for confiscation. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs and has ordered recovery of appropriate interest under the law. 2. At the time of consideration of the stay application, the Bench hearing the same was of the view that the appellants did not have a prima facie case in their favour and hence, they were asked to pre-deposit Rs. 20 lakhs towards duty, which has been deposited by the appellants. This appeal is now being taken up for hearing out of turn pursuant to early hearing application filed by the Revenue being allowed. 3. Shri V.S. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed in the generation of such electricity. 6. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner has correctly noted the provisions under the relevant rules, which allow credit of duty on furnace oil used in electricity generation provided such electricity is used for production of final products and also for other purposes so long as it is used within the factory of production. He has passed a detailed speaking order and has held that in respect of the electricity used in the residential premises/township the appellants are not eligible for the input duty credit, on the ground that such residential area is not part of the factory premises nor it can be considered to be falling within precincts of the factory premises. He has also referred to Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ip. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellants has also pleaded before us that the township was part of the ground plan approved by the Central Excise Superintendent, and hence, the same should be treated as part of the factory. We find that the ground plan submitted at the time of registration of the manufacturer under the Central Excise Rules is for the purpose of identifying the premises, which will be used by the manufacturer for producing excisable goods. It is not unusual for the manufacturer to submit a ground plan, which includes the factory area as well as the areas outside of the factory to specify location of the premises. Thus, by itself such a ground plan cannot support the claim of the appellants that all the areas surround....