Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The contention that since electricity by its very nature cannot be stored the appellants deliberately imported higher capacity DG sets in order to generate more electricity and sell the sane in DTA quantum of electricity and sale in DTA is not only factually incorrect as the use of electricity in the manufacture of the export products namely various types of yarn and fulfillment of export obligation is not disputed, but also not relevant in the face of the finding of the commissioner that capital goods and inputs were not used "only for the manufacture of yarn". In other worlds it is no disputed that the imported capital goods and imported and indigenously procured inputs were used for the purpose of manufacture of the export product. It is not the finding of the Commissioner that the goods in question were not used for such purpose. Therefore Ld. Counsel attempt t argue that the goods in disputes were not used for the purpose of manufacture of export goods is contrary to record and cannot be accepted. If both the phases of the project envisaged by the appellants were completed, there would not have been any excess electricity and entire electricity generated would have been consumed in their 100% EOU itself, hence there was no deliberate attempt to import DG Sets of higher capacity than required in their unit. Further, we, notice that for 14 months the entire quantum of electricity generated was used only within the factory of the appellants. however due to exigencies beyond the control of the appellants such as fire, accident, continued labour unrest etc. (which is not disputed by the Revenue,) production of yarn had reduced considerably and consequently requirement of electricity also reduced, but the captive power plant had to be run at the optimum level, failing which wear and tear and excess fuel consumption would result. further the connected load requirement of he first phase itself was 13.55 MW as seen from the Chartered Engineer's Certificate (this certificate has been discountenanced by the Commissioner who has held it to be a procured document) which has not been established to be false or incorrect. We also note that at the time of negotiating purchase of DG Sets with the overseas supplier in 1992, making application to the Board of Approval/Secretariat of Industrial Approval and grant of permission by SIA in 1993 and import of DG sets in February 1995, there was no provision in law for sale of electricity, and it was for the first time in December 1995 that the Government of Maharashtra introduced a Policy permitting sale of electricity, and hence the appellants could not have pre-planned to import higher capacity DG Sets for generation of Excess electricity and sale thereof in DTA.