TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Naphtha, as fuel, in gas turbines for generation of electricity. A part of the electricity so generated was captively consumed in the manufacture of final product and the balance portion wheeling out to their sister unit M/s Ashoka Spintex. A show cause notice dtd 9.11.2004 was issued proposing to recover Rs. 2,48,59,319/- being amount of re-credit for the period from April 2000 to 1.5.2003 in respect of electricity supplied to M/s Ashoka Spintex. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty. The Tribunal set aside the adjudication order. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order of the Tribunal. 2. By judgment dtd 17/8/2008 in Civil Appeal No 5556-5558 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icable rate with effect from 24.4.2004 from the appellant company under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2002 read with provisions of Section 11AB of the said Act till the amount as paid back. 4. Ld Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain whether any excess electricity was wheeled out to their sister company at a price and, if so, the Adjudicating Authority will calculate and charge duty or reverse the credit to that extent alone. He submits that in the present case, the appellant company had not charged any price to M/s Ashoka Spintex. Therefore, there is no question of reversal of credit in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the show cause notice proposed the reversal of credit of about Rs. 2.48 crores on the basis of their books of accounts. The Adjudicating Authority after considering their evidence viz., CA certificate modified the demand and reduced to Rs. 1,72,21,036/-. So, the submissions of the Ld Advocate that they have not charged any price is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the book adjustment would be construed as a payment to the sister unit and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of CE vs Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd 1988(37)ELT.294 (Tri). 5.1 Regarding the demand of interest, he submits that the utilisation of the input credit is not relevant. It is contended that they have availed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the evidence available to record that prior to 1.5.2003 M/s Ashoka Spintex was holding separate Central Excise, registration and was not part of the assessee. During the period under dispute, for which the assessee had first reversed proportionate cenvat credit and then suo moto re-credited the said amount. M/s Ashoka Spintex was holding a separate registration and was separate entity. The assessee has issued journal voucher notes for Rs. 27,56,29,686.10for the quantity of electricity sold to M/s Ashoka Spintex, Ahmedabad., the argument put forth by the assessee that since they had not charged or recovered any price is not tenable. Therefore, M/s Arind Ltd, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad is liable to pay proportionate cenvat credit of R 2,48,59,319....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions made before us. As per the order in appeal the transaction between the manufacturer and the branches cannot be considered as sale because it is mere transfer of products to these branches on book adjustments. We are unable to accept this finding. The learned Collector (Appeals) in this connection ignored the definition of sale as contained in Section 2(h) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which clearly includes transfer of the possession of goods of the kind as represented by the transactions in this case. There is no denial on behalf of the respondents that the transfer memos are indicative of their being monetary consideration in the transaction between the transfer and transferee. Merely because there is no payment i....