9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated:- 7-4-2011 - Mr. B.S.V.Murthy, Mr. Ashok Jindal, JJ. Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate for Appellant Shri R. K. Mahajan, Jt.C.D.R. for Respondent Per : B.S.V.Murthy M/s. Tata Power Company Ltd. (TPCL for short) are engaged in generation of electricity and they have procured Low Sulphur Heavy Stock ( LSHS for short) locally as well as Low Sulphur Waxy Residue (LSWR for short) from abroad to be used as one of the fuels for generating electricity. During the period October, 2001 to Feb. 2003, the said inputs were obtained without payment of Central Excise Duty/CVD under Notification No.03/2001 dated 1.3.2001 and 06/2002 dated 1.3.2002. These Notifications prescribe Nil rate of duty in respect of petroleum oils intended f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat portion of the electricity which was captively used in the plant was produced for NLC s own consumption and not for sale. Similarly, that portion of the electricity which was diverted from the plant to NLC s own lignite mine was also produced for their own consumption and not for sale. It is not the appellants case that their technology of power generation required captive use of electrical energy produced by them or that their auxiliary equipments in the plant and machinery in the mine could run only on power supply form their own power plant. Such use of electricity by NLC in their own plant and mine was not involuntary. Hence on strict interpretation required of any Exemption Notification the benefit of the subject Notifications is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use as fuel for the generation of electrical energy for sale. M/s. NLC are liable to pay duty on this quantity of LSHS procured by them during August, 1998 to October, 2002 and August, 2003 to January, 2004. 3. In this case also, the duty demand is in respect of LSHS/LSWR consumed proportionately to the quantity of inputs used for generation of electricity in the auxiliary units. We find ourselves in fully agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of NLC. As regards larger period of limitation invoked for demanding duty, we find that the Tribunal in the case of NLC had taken a view that larger period is not invocable. Even though, it was vehemently argued by the ld.Jt.CDR that TPCL had not intimated initially that they c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
