9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation [2006 (9) TMI 443 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], in which the said issue has been discussed in detail - In the present case, without such LSHS, the appellant cannot commission or start up the ignition of the furnace. That therefore it is an essential fuel for generation of electricity for the appellant. Therefore, denial of benefit of notification is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/590/2009 - Final Order No. 41909 / 2017 - Dated:- 30-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Sweta Giridhar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are a power generatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Column II of the Notification is that intended for use as fuels for the generation of electrical energy . In the appellant s power plant, coal is the main input used for generation of electricity. However, LSHS is used for litting up the coal and is therefore a secondary fuel. It is used for starting up / ignition of furnace and this is the essential fuel for generation of electricity. Although coal is used for continuous generation of electricity, LSHS is also intended for use as fuel for the generation of electricity since it is used for ignition of the furnace. It is also submitted by her that the said issue was considered by the Tribunal in their own case for an earlier period reported in 2008-TIOL-2581-CESTAT-MAD, which relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notification. In the said case, the Tribunal had also an occasion to consider whether the appellant would be eligible for the exemption benefit when it is used as a secondary fuel for generation of electricity. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision, the Tribunal has observed as follows:- 10. Another issue which arises in this case is whether the benefit of the Notification was admissible to secondary fuels like LSHS. This issue is already covered in favour of the appellants by our decision in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry 2007 (209) E.L.T. 310 (Tri. - Chennai) = 2006-TIOL-1733-CESTAT-MAD. As in the instant case, LSHS was used as secondary fuel in the thermal power station of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed licence under Section 3 or sanction under Section 28 of the 1910 Act for supply of electrical energy to TNEB. Hence they were not eligible for the benefit during the said period. Compliance with procedural conditions did not render them eligible, nor can they claim eligibility for the period of dispute on the strength of anything contained in the 1948 Act. However, with the dropping of the proposal of revocation of registration and cancellation of Annexure I Certificate, they have been in a position to claim the benefit of the Notification from 1.3.2003 as a generating company . 6. The Tribunal has followed the judgment in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (supra), in which the said issue has been discussed in detail. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
