9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Appellants filed this appeal againat the order-in-original dated 17-6-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants are not a factory belonged to or maintained by the State Government. 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a state. He, further, relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TANSI v. C.C.E., Madras reported in 1999 (82) ECR 330 and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that M/s. TANSI is a State Govt. Undertaking maintained by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence each unit's clearances qualify for the exemption as provided under Notification No. 175/86 in view of the Explanation V of the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue, reiterates the findings of the Collector of Central Excise. 4. Heard both sides. 5. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is denied to the appellants. The contention of the appellants is that the units are owned by the State Government. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit as per Explanation V of the Notification. The contention of the revenue is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rguments of the appellants for remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding the matter afresh after taking into consideration the decisions of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Tribunal and after affording an opportunity of personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
