9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Small Industries Corporation or by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, then the value of excisable goods cleared from such factory alone shall be taken into account. Since, respondent is a manufacturing unit owned and controlled by the State Government, hence respondent is squarely covered under Explanation (E) to the above referred Notifications - Decided in favor of assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No.1958, 1959 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Present for the appellant : Shri R.K. Verma, A.R. Present for the respondent : Shri S.P. Singh, Advocate Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): By this order, we propose to dispose of above two appeals preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit under the above Notifications as the appellant manufacturing unit is owned and controlled by the UPSEB, an autonomous body, which alone have other manufacturing units located in the State of U.P. Thus, clearance value of the electricity pole manufactured by all of the units at UPSEB was liable to be clubbed together as per para 2(vii) of the Notification. Accordingly, the respondent was served with show cause notices calling upon him to pay the short paid central excise duty amounting to Rs.2,58,068/- for the period January 2002 to June 2002 and Rs.2,69,959/- for the period July 2002 to December 2002 and imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was also proposed. The respondent contested the Notice. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Village Industries Commission, then the value of excisable goods cleared from such factory alone shall be taken into account. Learned A.R. submitted that the respondent is a Lucknow unit of UPSEB (UP Power Corporation Ltd.) which also have various other manufacturing units in different parts of the State. Since UPSEB (UP Power Corporation Ltd.) is autonomous body it cannot be equated with the State and as such it cannot said that the respondent is a factory owned or maintained by the State of UP, as such, the respondent is not eligible for the benefit of Explanation (E) to the Notification No.8/2001 and 8/2002. In support of this contention, learned A.R. has relied upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On bare reading of the Explanation it is evident that benefit of this provision under the Notifications would be available to the respondent which is a manufacturing unit of UPSEB (now known as UP Power Corporation Ltd.) only if it is established that the respondent is owned or maintained by State Government. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to copy of the Gazette Notification No.151/P-1/2000-24, Lucknow 14 January 2000 whereby it has been notified that Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited is a Government company as the State Transmission Utility. It is not disputed that the respondent M/s Electricity Pole Manufacturing unit is a Lucknow manufacturing unit of UP Power Corporation Ltd. which was earlier known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
