2012 (8) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.02.93 - Held that - The benefit of Notification 74/93-CE is not available to the goods manufactured by the State Electricity Board as the benefit of Notification is available to the goods manufactured in the factory belonging to the State Government intended for use for the Govt. Department - the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority afresh in view of decision of ASSTT. ENGINEER (CIVIL) Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 2008 (9) TMI 105 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the State Electricity Board is not a Govt.Department.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 74/93-CE for exemption eligibility for goods manufactured by State Electricity Board.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of M/s. PSC Pole Factory for claiming the benefit of Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.02.93. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing PSC Poles falling under Chapter sub-heading 6807.90 of the Tariff and had cleared the same by claiming the said benefit. The revenue contended that the exemption under the notification was not available to the State Electricity Board. The Commissioner(Appeals) had upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority, prompting the revenue to file an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether the benefit of the notification is available to goods manufactured by the State Electricity Board had been settled by a Larger Bench in a previous case. The Larger Bench had held that the State Electricity Board is not a Government Department, and therefore, the benefit of the notification is not available to goods manufactured by them. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in light of the Larger Bench's decision. The adjudicating authority was directed to examine other issues such as limitation and provide an opportunity to the respondents for presenting their case.

The respondents had also filed Cross-Objections, which were disposed of in the same judgment. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the precedent set by the Larger Bench in a similar case. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal principles and established interpretations of statutes and notifications in determining the eligibility for exemptions and benefits under the law. The case highlighted the significance of consistency in legal interpretation and the need for adjudicating authorities to reconsider matters in light of relevant legal precedents to ensure fair and just decisions.