Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak v. M/S Jindal Stainless Ltd

IN T

Commissioner o Commissionerat

M/s Jindal Stain

CORAM : HON HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The Excise, Commis 1944, against th Service Tax App

2.

The relevant portion " to Sla und reg

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CEA-84-

Reserved Date of P

of Central Excise, te Rohtak

VERSUS nless Ltd.

N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate and r. Viney Kumar, Advocate for the r. Ankit Awal, Advocate for the r -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal is preferred ssionerate, Rohtak, under Sectio he order dated 21.08.2008 passed pellate Tribunal, New Delhi. e brief facts of the case as p n of the findings are reproduced a M/s Jindal Strips Ltd., Delhi as the Party) are engaged in t abs, Blooms, Ingots, HR Strips/C der Chapter 72 of the Central gistered with the Central Ex

JAB AND HARYANA ARH -2009 (O&M) d on :- 07.01.2025 Pronouncement:28.01.2025

....Appellant

....Respondent PALLI EEPTI SHARMA d e appellant. respondent. by the Commissioner of Cen on 35(G) of the Central Excise A d by the learned Customs, Excise per the Order-in-Original and as under:- i Road, Hisar (hereinafter refer the manufacture of goods such Coils of Stainless Steel etc. fall l Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and xcise vide Registration Num

ntral Act, e & rred h as ling are

AAB Cre The elec wh 57B Cre

¶2som Ele Bij offi Me Sec par Gri Cen Gri Exp from par

BCJ1969MXM001. The party a edit facility of duty paid on input e party have installed a captiv ctricity using fuel namely, R.O ich they are taking Modvat/CE B of the Central Excise Rules, edit (No.2) Rules, 2001 and Rul

¶02Acting on an intelligence t me part of electricity generated ectricity Board the Haryana Stat li Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL) ficers of Central Excise. The pa emo No.210/DB-33 (3)85/Jin cretary, Technical Section, H rallel operation of their Captiv id. On scrutiny of the Permiss ntral Excise officers that as per e Captive Power Plant was syn id on 11KV. Further as per t port/Import Meters on 11KV bu eir Captive Power Plant to the m HSEB system respectively. T rt of the power generated by th

are availing the Modvat/CENV t/raw materials and Capital Goo ve power plant for generation O., R.F.O, H.P.S. and L.D.O. ENVAT credit under Rule 57A a 1944, Rule 2 and 3 of CENV le 2 and 3 of CENVAT Credit Ru that the said party ware clear d by their Captive Power Plan te (HSEB) ((now Dakshin Harya )) an enquiry was conducted by arty produced the permission le ndal Strips/Hisar dt 1-10-90 HSEB, Panchkula (Haryana) ve Power Plan with HSEB, Pow ion Letter it was observed by Clause0II of the Permission Let nchronized with the HSEB Pow the agreement the party provid us for recording power injected e HSEB system and power dra The party had been clearing so heir Captive Power Plant to HS

VAT ods. n of on VAT ule, ring n to ana etter for wer tter, wer ded d by awls ome

exp

¶3(DH resp fur His Nig by clea adj Nig tota sys

¶4sta Act Ma Cap On Cap

d not reversing the proportionat e fuel which was consumed by th ported to HSEB. The SDO (DHBVNL), HSEB HBVNL) Hisar submitted the sta pect of M/s Jindal Strips Ltd., 03-04 (upto June, 2003). The AE ther clarified vide letter dt. 30-0 e HSEB now Nigam, i.e. the powe sar in their system, was measu gam had not been making any ca Nigam from M/s Jindal Strips ared/injected by M/s Jindal Strip justed in the monthly electricity gam sold to M/s Jindal Strips Ltd al cleared units/injected by M/s tem. Shri Arun Goel, Vice Presid tement dated 24-07-2003 unde t, 1944 stated that he was wo aintenance and admitted that th ptive Power Plant to HSEB syste 21-8-03 he submitted the da ptive Power Plant for the period

te Modvat/CENVAT credit taken hem for the generation of electric B (the AEE"OP" S/D, Model To atement of power purchased/sold Hisar for the period 1991-92 EE "OP" S/D, Model Town, Hi 07-03 that the power purchased er ejected by M/s Jindal Strips L ured by the export meter and ash payment for the units purcha s Ltd., Hisar. However, the un ips Ltd., Hisar in their system w ty bills at the same rate at wh d., Hisar after deducting 10% of /s Jindal Strips Ltd. Hisar in th dent of the Party in his volunt er Section 14 of the Central Exc orking as Incharge of Electric he power cleared/injected by th em was measured by Export Me ata sheet for fuel consumption d from April, 2001 to March, 20

n on city own d in 2 to isar d by Ltd., ased nits were hich f the heir tary cise city heir eter.

Cap

¶5vol Exc gen also gen of p HSE he gen sta mig rep

¶6rec sam wri they cha also

d he further stated that the fuel ptive Power Plant before April, 2 Shri R.K. Gupta, General M luntary statement dated 24-07-20 cise Act, stated that they were neration of power and after 1-3 o stated that they were taking M neration of power used in their C power. On 28-07-2003 he stated SEB system was adjusted in the M stated that they were taking neration of power and for other ted that the price of the fuel used ght be taken on average basis as port as total oil used and not item Vide their letter dt. 9-10-03 ceived in their factory and Mod me for the period Jan., 99 to J itten statement dated 21-10-200 ey were taking Modvat/CENVAT eir Captive Power Plant for aracteristic of the Electricity tha o the Electricity once cleared ca

l consumption report in respect 2001 was not available with him Manager (Excise) of the Party in 003 under Section 14 of the Cent using F.O., R.F.O. and L.D.O. 3-03 the L.D.0. was not used a Modvat/CENVAT Credit on fuel Captive Power Plant for generat d that the power cleared/injected Monthly Electricity Bill. On 21-8 CENVAT credit on fuel used r purpose in the factory. He furt d in the generation of the electric s they were making oil consumpt m wise. 3 the Party submitted the total f dvat/CENVAT credit taken on June, 03. In his further volunt 03 Shri R.K. Gupta admitted t T credit on the entire fuel used generation of electricity. It at Electricity cannot be stored a annot be brought back.

t of m. his tral for for tion d in 8-03 for ther city tion fuel tary that d in

¶7Rul Cen be for pro on bee pro usin Mo und Cen am tak is r

8.

As per the provisions of Rul 44, 57AA of the Central Excise le 2(f) of CENVAT Credit (No.2 nvat Credit Rule, 2002, a manu allowed to take the credit of the generation of electricity or ste oduct or any purpose, within th scrutiny of the records of the P en clearing/injecting some porti eir Captive Power Plant to HS ovisions of the aforesaid Rules by ng inputs for the specified purp odvat/Cenvat credit. As such fue d the electricity diverted/cleared der the purview of eligible in ntral Excise Rules, 1944, Rul endment) Rules, 2000 and Rule d 2002 applicable during the r ken and utilized on fuel used for t recoverable. It was observed that:

(i) the party had contravened Central Excise Rules 1944, 5 amendment) Rules, 2000 an

le 57B of the Central Excise Ru (2nd amendment) Rules, 2000 a 2) Rules, 2001 and Rule 2(g) of ufacturer of the final product sh e specified duty paid on inputs u eam used for manufacture of fi he factory of production. Howev Party it was revealed that they h ion of the electricity generated SEB and thereby contravened y not using electricity generated pose on which the party had ta el used for generation of electric d outside the factory is not cove nputs defined under Rule 57A le 57AB of Central Excise (2 e 2 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 20 relevant period and as such cre the purpose other then the specif d the provision of Rule 57A, 57B 57AB, 57AA of Central Excise (2 nd Rule 2 and 3 of the CENV

ule, f the hall used final ver, ave d by d by ken city ered of 2nd edit fied B of (2nd

Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 Modvat/CENVAT credit to th period Jan., 1999 to June, 2 electricity cleared to HSEB recoverable from them.

(ii) The Party had suppresse they were clearing/injecting Captive Power Pla Modvat/CENVAT credit had This fact of clearance of elec after the records were scruti which was detected after goi verification of documents w Party to the Deptt. It appea commission of the Party ta from the Department and th Central Excise Rules, 1944, (2nd amendment) Rules, 200 Central Excise Act, 1944, we years is invoke-able against

(iii) Shri R.K. Gupta, Gene Central Excise matter of the affairs of the Party was exp fuel in the generation of the

2 and thereby availed inadmissi he tune of Rs. 4,22,06,993/- for 003 on fuels used for generation (now DHBVNL) and the same w ed these facts from Department t the part of electricity generated an (by using fuel on wh d been taken and utilized) to HSE ctricity to HSEB came to light o inized by the Central Excise Offi ing through the discrete inquiry a which were not submitted by ared that this act of omission a ntmounted to suppression of fa he provisions of Rule 571(1) (ii) Rule 57AH (2) of Central Exc 00 and proviso to Section 11A (1) ere attracted wherein period of f the party. eral Manager (Excise) Incharge e Company dealing with day to d pected to inform this fact of us electricity being exported to HS

ible n of was that d by hich EB. only ficer acts ) of cise ) of five e of day sing

3.

The reply to the sam

4.

Aft learned Commis "13 The elec in Mo ent Ele Pla Pow Cap sup 10%

(now DHBVNL) and to rev taken on that portion of fue rather intentionally did not intent to evade Central inadmissible Modvat/CENVA to penal action under Rule 1944 and Rule 13 of CENVA e show cause notice was issued me. ter considering the reply and ssioner held as under:-

¶3From the above the followin e Party have installed a capti ctricity and they are using F.O., the D.G. sets installed for odvat/Cenvat credit on F.O., R.F tered into an agreement dat ectricity Board (HSEB) for paral ant by virtue of which their plan wer Grid. They cleared some pa ptive Power Plant to HSEB. Th pplied by the HSEB on payment. eir plant was adjusted in the bi % wheeling charges.

verse the Modvat/ CENVAT Cre el.. He had failed in his duty a t take action as stated above w Excise duty by way of tak AT credit. He, thus, appeared lia 209A of the Central Excise Ru AT Credit Rules." d to the respondent and they fi after giving personal hearing ng undisputed facts have emerg ive power plant for generation , R.F.O., H.P.S. and L.D.O. as f this purpose and are avail F.O., H.P.S. and L.D.0. They h ted 1.10.90 with Haryana St llel operation of the Captive Pow nt was synchronized with the HS art of the power generated by th he party was also using the pow The power exported to HSEB fr ll raised by HSEB after deduct

edit with king able les, iled ged. n of fuel ling ave tate wer SEB heir wer rom

¶14Mo elec rec adm R.F def (No

The allegations made b odvat/CENVAT Credit availed on ctricity, cleared by the party to H coverable from the party. At missibility of Cenvat/modvat cr F.O., H.P.S. and L.D.O. used in finition of inputs given under o.2) Rules, 2001 and 2002 and R 04 is as under: "inputs" means all goods, motor spirit, commonly know to the manufacture of fin indirectly and whether conta includes lubricating oils, accessories of the final pro products, goods used as pai fuel, or for generation of manufacture of final produc the factory of production. Explanation 1: The high s commonly known as petrol, s any purpose whatsoever.

by department are t n the fuels used in the generation HSEB is liable to be disallowed a the first instance I discuss edit availed by the party on F. n the generation of electricity. T Rule 2(f) of the CENVAT Cre Rule 2(g) of CENVAT Credit Ru except high speed diesel oil a wn as petrol, used in or in relat nal products whether directly ained in the final product or not a greases, cutting oils, coolan oducts cleared alongwith the fi ints, or as packing material, or of electricity or steam used cts or for any other purpose, wit speed diesel oil or motor spi shall not be treated as an input

that n of .O., The edit les, tion or nts, final r as for thin irit,

¶15Mo use pro con inp sho elec wh elec bec HSE pur sho Cen gen reg only ava

Explanation 2: Inputs includ of capital goods which are manufacture."

From the definition of odvat/Cenvat credit is admissib ed for generation of electricity oducts within the factory of nditions/legs for allowing M puts/goods for the generation o ould be used for the generat ctricity should be used for the m e factory of production. I observ e first condition/leg because the ich they have taken Modvat/Ce ctricity. But they have failed cause they have not used electr SEB for the manufacture of the rpose within their factory of p ow cause notice has not nvat/modvat credit on F.O., R.F neration of electricity. Therefo garding admissibility of Cenvat/m ly dispute is in respect of the ailed on the inputs used in the g

des goods used in the manufact further used in the factory of the Inputs, it is evident t ble on the inputs/goods which y, used for manufacture of fi production. Thus there are t Modvat/ Cenvat Credit on of electricity i.e. (1) inputs/go tion of electricity; and (ii) su manufacture of final products wit ve that the said party have fulfil ey have used the inputs/goods envat Credit for the generation to fulfill the second condition/ ricity so generated and exported eir final products or for any ot production. The department in disputed the admissibility F.O., H.P.S. and L.D.O. used in ore, the contentions of the pa modvat credit are insignificant. T amount of Cenvat/modvat cre generation of electricity exported

ture that are final two ods uch thin lled on n of /leg d to ther of arty The edit

HSE pro leg The pow as HSE HSE app con be clea was from as A a p cos agr gen sold

SEB as the same has not been oduct within the factory of produ g of the definition of inputs unde e party in their reply have stres wer to HSEB to remove the fluc e power generated by their D.G. it is and they are receiving ba SEB. However, as per the condit SEB and the party the content pear to be correct. No such claus ntrary as per clause XIV of the d pumped into the HSEB grid fr accounted for during the billin ar that the party has been expor s being adjusted in their electric m the letter of AEE 'OP' S/D M Annexure-3 to the show cause n e power injected by the party in t e Nigam. From the above it is es part of the power generated in t st of this power was deducted f reement. Therefore, the party nerated by them in the manufact d the same to HSEB and hence

used in the manufacture of fi uction as required under the seco er Rule 2(f)/2(g) of the Rules, ib ssed that they have been export ctuations and other short coming Sets since the same cannot be u ack equal quantity of power fr tions of the agreement between tions raised by the party did se appear in the agreement. On e agreement "the power genera rom the captive generating unit w ng month". From this clause i rting power to HSEB and the sa city bill. The fact is further clarif M. Town (DHBVNL), Hisar enclo notice wherein the AEE has term their system as power purchased tablished that the party was sell their power plant to HSEB and from their monthly bill as per y have not used such electric ture of their final product but h e the Cenvat/modvat credit avai

final ond bid. ting g in used rom not ated will t is ame fied osed med d by ling city ave

on und Cen CE

¶16wh gen elec rep con gen con are of t mo by only from

¶17sup inv wer

the inputs used in the generatio der Rules 57A, 57B of Central E ntral Excise (2nd amendment) R ENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, 2002

In their reply the party have ich they had not make arrange nerated by them in their capti ctricity produced by them was n port of TCE has been submit ntention. They have tried to estab nerated by them to HSEB and ndition but this plea of the party e not exporting whole of the elec the same. Further as per the st nth wise/ year wise report it is e Captive Power Plant of M/s JSL e HSEB Grid. But the arrangem ly the excess power is being in m their factory. Another contention raised by th ppressed from the Departmental e Show Cause Notice so exte vokable. The facts of captive gen re in the knowledge of the depa

n of such electricity is inadmissi Excise Rules, 1944, 57AB, 57AA Rules, 2000 and Rule 2 and 3 of and 2004. submitted the circumstances un ements for clearance of electric ive power plant to HSEB as not usable by them. The feasibi tted by them in support of th blish that they export the electric receive the same back in usa also does not hold good since t ctricity so generated but only a p tatement given by HSEB regard evident that all the power genera SL, Hisar is not exported/cleared ment of synchronization is such t njected/cleared out to HSEB G he party is that since no facts w l authorities as has been alleged ended period of limitation is neration of electricity by the pa artment since the audit has visi

ible A of f the nder city ility heir city able they part ding ated d to that Grid were d in not arty

fur dt.1 agr sub pro obs ava sho was not of dep pro vid con from Dep esta tan inte Mo

em and they were availing the cre ther contended that the depart

15.11.2000 specifically asked t reement entered into with the bmitted the various details. I h oduced by the party in support o serve that the audit of their re ailment of Cenvat/modvat credit ould have been in the knowledg s engaged in the captive genera t produced any documentary evi their agreement with the H partment. They have also not be ove that they had supplied the inf de letter dt.15.11.2000. Theref ntentions are not tenable and th m the Department and did not partment that they were clearin em in their captive power pla ablished that this act of omiss ntamount to suppression of fac ention to evade payment odvat/Cenvat credit on the fuel u

edit of duty paid on D.G. Sets. T tmental authorities had vide le them to furnish information ab State Electricity Board and t have gone through the docume of this contention raised by them cord was conducted and from on the duty paid on the D.G. Set ge of the department that the pa ation of electricity but the party idence to suggest that the existe HSEB was in the knowledge en able to produce any evidence formation asked for the departm fore, I observe that the par hey have suppressed all these fa inform any communication to g/injecting electricity generated ant to the Grid of HSEB. It sion and commission of the pa cts from the Department with of duty by wrongly avail used in the generation of electric

They tter bout they ents m. I ts it arty has nce of e to ment rty's acts d by t is arty ling

wh per *

¶25elec Rs. Cau Rs. Rs. Rs. tha SCN *

¶29to t

(I) (Ru rec Cen am cau

ich was exported to HSEB (now riod of five years has been correc

*

As regard the quantum of go ctricity which was exported/cle 4,22,06,993/- involved in such g use Notice) in respect of sh 70,74,874/- in respect sho 78,06,003/- in respect of show 87,20,836/- in respect of show at the party have not disputed t N or at the time of personal hear

*

In view of the above discuss the facts and circumstances of th I disallow Modvat/CENVAT C upees Four Crores Twenty-Two d Ninety-Three only for the perio covery of the same from the sa ntral Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 5 endment) Rules, 2000 and Rule d 2002 read with proviso to Sec 44, by invoking extended period use notice dt. 30.12.2003.

w DHBVNL) and therefore, lon ctly invoked in this case. *

* ood/fuel used in the generation eared to the HSEB and amount goods/fuel (ad detailed in the Sh how cause notice dt.30.12.20 ow cause notice dt.28.6.20 w cause notice dt.28.12.2004, a w cause notice dt.27.6.2005, I f the same either in the reply to ring. *

* sions and findings and have reg he case I pass the following order Credit amounting Rs.4,22,06,99 Lacs Six Thousand Nine Hund od Jan. 99 to June 03 and order id party under Rule 571(1)(11) 57AH (2) of the Central Excise (2 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 20 ction 11A (1) of Central Excise A d of five years as proposed in sh

nger n of t of how 003, 004, find gard r: 93/- dred for ) of 2nd Act,

(II) Sev only par (11 (Ru Thi par dt.2

(IV) Tw only Rul Rul Sec dt.3

(V) upo Exc dt.3

) I disallow CENVAT Credit am venty Lacs Seventy Four Thousan ly) and Rs. 78,06,003/- (Rupees d Three only) and order for re rty under Rule 12 of the Cenvat e show Cause notice dt. 28.06.20 11) 1 disallow CENVAT Cre upees Eighty Seven Lacs Twen irty Six only) and order for re rty under Rule 12 of the Cenvat e Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as p

27.06.2005. V) I impose a penalty of Rs.4, wenty Two Lacs Six Thousand ly) upon the party under Rule 57 le 57AH (2) of Central Excise le 13 (2) of CENVAT Credit ction 11AC of the Central Excis

30.12.2003. ) 1 Am also Impose penalty Rs.5 on the party under Rule 1730 ( cise the aforesaid violation of Ru

30.12.2003.

mounting to Rs.70,74,874/- (Rup nd Eight Hundred and Seventy f s Seventy Eight Lacs Six Thousa ecovery of the same from the s Credit Rules, 2002 as proposed 04 and 28.12.2004 respectively. edit amounting to Rs.87,20,83 nty Thousand Eight Hundred a ecovery of the same from the s Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 proposed in the show cause not 22,06,993/- (Rupees Four Cro Nine Hundred and Ninety-Th 71(4) of Central Excise Rule, 19 (2nd amendment) Rules, 2000 a Rules, 2001 and 2002 read w se Act, 1944 respect of show not 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs on

(1) (bb) Rules, 1944 of for Cent ules in respect of show cause not

pees four said d in 36/- said 4 of tice ores hree 944, with tice nly) tral

(VI) (Rs said 57A of Cen Exc (VI Fif afo

¶28(VI Shr of t

5.

The dated 30.11.200 an appeal befor Delhi and the sa

6.

Hen

I) I also order for recovery s.4,22,06,993/- Rs.7074874/- + e applicable/ appropriate rate of d party under Rule 571 (5) of AH (1) of Central Excise (2nd am the CENVAT Credit Rules, 20 nvat Credit Rules, 2004 read w cise Act, 1944. II) I also impose a penalty Rs fty Lacs) upon the party under R 01 and 2002 and Rule 15 of the oresaid violation of Rules in r

06.2004 and 27.06.2005. III) I impose Penalty of Rs.5,00 ri R.K. Gupta, General Manager the Central Excise Rules, 13(1) o

¶02e respondent challenged the ab 05 passed by the Commissioner re the Customs, Excise and Ser ame was allowed by the learned T nce the present appeal.

y of interest on Rs.6,58,08,70 Rs.7806003/-+ Rs.8720836/-) f interest from time to time) from f Central Excise Rules, 1944, R mendment) rules, 2000 and Rule 001 and 2002 and Rule 14 of with Section 11AB of the Cent s.1.50 Crores (Rupees One Cr Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Ru e Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for respect of show cause notices 0,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) r of the Company under Rule 20 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 a bove referred to Order-in-Origi of Central Excise, Rohtak by fil rvice Tax Appellate Tribunal, N Tribunal.

06/- (at Rule e 12 tral rore les, dt. on 09A inal ling

7.

Lea a) rele adj b) fac rec by imp of e c) cap pro As

¶01pro gen con fina pla Ele to e

arned counsel for the appellant c The findings of the Tribun evant clauses of the agreeme udicating authority has not been The findings of the learned same quantity of electricity w tually incorrect and contrary to ord of electricity supplied by the the respondent from HSEB was pugned show cause notice, whic electricity received and supplied The case of the department ptive plant was not used in or oducts within the factory of pro per explanation introduced in

03.1994 inputs used as fuel ovided such fuels are either u nerating electricity, as an interm nnected with several operations, al product, however, in the inst ant for generating electricity, w ectricity Board was not at all con emergence of the final product.

contends that :- nal are factually incorrect and nt and evidence relied upon n dealt with or considered Tribunal that respondent receiv which was cleared to HSEB is a the facts on record. The details e respondent to HSEB and receiv s the relied upon documents to ch clearly showed that the quan d by the respondent are different. is that the electricity generated r relation to manufacture of fi oduction and rather sold to HSE n notification number 4/94 da were entitled to Modvat cre utilised directly or indirectly mediary product, and is integra , which result in emergence of tant case, fuels used in the capt which was sold to Haryana St nnected with the operations lead

by ved also s of ved ntity

d in inal EB. ated edit, for ally tive tate

8.

Per were exporting the power gener they were receiv entitled to CENV

9.

We record of the cas

10.

Rel the learned Trib "5. gen wit wh in qua app Gro ma inp Ele elec

r contra, learned counsel for t power to HSEB to remove fluc rated by their DG sets since the ving back equal quantity of pow VAT Credit availed on fuel used e have heard learned counsel for se. levant portion of the impugned bunal is reproduced as under:-

We find that the appellants a neration of electricity. The app th the State Electricity Board t ich the appellants were permitte the captive power plant and antity of electricity from the el pellant received same quantity o e electricity board is not in disp e electricity generated in the cap d as such power cannot be used ooming Mill. The agreement w intain uniform frequency of ele puts used in generation of electri ectricity Board and the same qu ctricity board and used in the

the respondent contends that th ctuations and other shortcomings e same cannot be used as it is a wer from HSEB. Therefore, they d in generation of electricity. r the parties and perused the wh order dated 21.08.2008 passed availed credit in respect of inputs pellants entered into an agreem termed as Wheeling Agreement ed to clear the electricity genera simultaneously to receive eq lectricity board. The fact that of electricity which were cleared pute. This agreement was made ptive power plant is fluctuating ty in the Arch Furnace, Strip Mill a with the electricity board was ectricity. In these situation as icity which was cleared to the St uantity was received back from e manufacture of excisable go

hey s in are hole d by s in ment t by ated qual d to e as type s to tate

clea tha clea The

11.

A p that the electric manufacture of HSEB whereas no dispute with was cleared to decided by the l

12.

Du that the matter referred to issue

13.

In Tribunal to deci

14.

Dis

15.

Pen

(ARUN PAL JUDGE

January 28, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

ared on payment of duty we fin at the inputs were used in gen ared outside the factory of erefore, appeals are allowed." perusal of the above shows that city generated in captive plan f final products within the facto learned Tribunal did not decide regard to the appellant receiving the Electricity Board, therefor earned Tribunal. uring the course of arguments bot be remanded back to the lear e in dispute. view of the above, the matter ide the dispute as referred to abov sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

LLI)

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

: Y

nd that the demand on the grou neration of electricity which w f production is not sustainab t the dispute in the present case nt was not used in or relation ory of production but was sold e this dispute and held that ther g same quantity of electricity wh re, the issue in dispute was ne th the counsel for the parties agr rned Tribunal to decide the abo r is remanded back to the learn ve in para 11 of this judgment. tand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE Speaking

und was ble. e is n to d to e is hich ever eed ove ned