Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Central Excise, Raipur 2008 (232) ELT 628. In view of this request for adjournment is declined and the appeals are being taken up for hearing. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.C.C. Poles falling under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant claimed that their factory belong to State Government and are entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No.74/93-C.E. dt. 28.2.1993. The Notification grants exemption from payment of Central Excise duty to State Government factories (in respect of the goods manufactured) by a factory belonging to a Stage Government and such goods are intended for use by any department of that Government. 4. The benefit of the notification is denied by the Revenue. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Allahabad High Court in UP. State Electricity Board vs Collector of Customs & Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 14 (All), rejected the claim of the U.P. State Electricity Board for exemption under Notification No. 57/75-CE dated 01.03.1975. The said notification was couched in more or less similar language - "hereby exempts all goods ........... manufactured by factory belonging to any State Government for the purpose declared by Parliament by law to be incidental to the ordinary functions of the Government......". The said decision of the Allahabad High Court was cited in Electricity Poles Manufacturing case (supra). However, the Bench found that the decision had received consideration of the Tribunal in Final Order no. F/1676/98-B1 dated 02.1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, they qualify for exemption under the notification. The submission is totally misconceived.     7. The State Government - which functions through various Departments created under the Rules of Executive Business - is a consumer of electricity like any ordinary consumer and it is totally incorrect to suggest that the PCC poles are 'used' by a consumer. The Electricity Board as the licensee' under the Electricity (Supply) Act generates electricity which is transmitted, distributed and supplied by its agencies and for such supply it charges the consumer. In other words, the Electricity Boards ultimately sell electricity to the consumers. The consumers may be individuals, factories, industrial/commercial establishments or even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vernment, it should also be the manufactured in the factory belonging to a State Government. The status of the Electricity Board being different from the State Government about -which there is no dispute - the exemption has to be rejected on that ground alone. We are thus satisfied that the conditions are not fulfilled by the appellant Board and, therefore, it is not entitled to exemption under the notification as held by the Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) and Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (supra). The decision in Electricity Poles Manufacturing (supra) does not correctly lay down the law.     9. It was submitted that the decision in Electricity Poles Manufacturing (supra) was upheld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the result, the reference is answered in the negative and against the appellant. It is held that Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board is not a Department of the State Government so as to be eligible for exemption in respect of goods i.e PCC Poles manufactured in their factories. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-CE. 6. The appellant also challenged the demand which is confirmed after invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. We find that prior to the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal there are divergent views on the issue. In view of this, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates