TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HPL Co-Generation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HPLCL) situated in the same factory premises, for generation of electricity and steam, following the procedure laid down under Rule 57AC(5)(a) of Central Excise Rules or Rule 4(5(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules as was in force during the said period. The electricity and steam generated out of the supplied RFG, were returned to the Applicant and the same were used by the Applicant in the manufacture of their final products in their factory. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that since the Residual Fuel Gas(RFG) was an intermediate excisable product, manufactured out of cracking Naptha, and being classifiable under chapter sub-heading No.2711.90 of C.E.T.A., 1985, hence, the same could not be remov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacture of final products and details regarding removal/movement of RFG to HPLCL situated in the same factory premise, for generation of electricity and steam, and further use of the electricity and steam so generated in their factory for manufacture of final products had been intimated to the Department through their letter dated 16.11.1999 and hence the present demand is barred by limitation. 5. Ld.A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He has submitted that RFG emerged in the process of cracking the Naptha, during the course of manufacture of the final products, was an intermediate excisable product, classifiable under chapter sub-heading No.2711.90 and accordingly Central Excise duty was liable to be discharged on remo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise Rules or Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 during the said period. Even though the Ld.Commissioner has considered the said judgement, but not followed it observing that the said case was different from the present one. Prima facie, we find that his reasoning that the present case is completely different from the earlier one, is not acceptable at this stage. On a plain reading of the Tribunal's observation at para 2 and 24 of the order, it is clear that the issue involved in the said case is more or less on the same lines as has been raised by the Revenue in the present case; the only difference is that in the said case, the partial processed goods was CLS whereas in the instant case, it was RFG, but both these products ....