9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was given to the power plant separately. In such situation, the Revenue cannot take a stand that the power plant is another factory and not to be considered as within the factory of the appellant. The appellant’s case is further strengthened in view of the fact that all the inputs transferred to the power plants by the appellant are fully utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of electricity which in turn is fully used captively by the appellants. As such, we find the impugned order of the lower Authorities is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee - Excise Appeal No. 3023 of 2006 - Final Order No. 52648/2015 - Dated:- 20-8-2015 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to a new entity. Though there is change of ownership of this power plant there is no movement of inputs, capital goods, plant and machinery from anywhere. The power plant continue to remain within the factory premises of the appellant. Their main contention is that the inputs purchased/manufactured by the appellants and transferred to the power plant situated within their factory premises are not liable to duty/reversal of credit. 2. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant stated that there is no removal of goods outside the factory and the captive power plant continues to remain as integral part of the factory of production of the appellant. Whatever inputs manufactured/purchased by the appellant and sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry and as such the liability arose. We find that the factory premises as licenced under Central Excise provisions in respect of the appellants continued to be unaffected and no separate Central Excise licence with de-marketed premises was given to the power plant separately. In such situation, the Revenue cannot take a stand that the power plant is another factory and not to be considered as within the factory of the appellant. The appellant s case is further strengthened in view of the fact that all the inputs transferred to the power plants by the appellant are fully utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of electricity which in turn is fully used captively by the appellants. As such, we find the impugned order of the lower Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
