9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is also a cross objection filed by the respondents. 2. The respondent is Deputy Engineer (Civil), Maharashtra State Electricity Board, PSC Pole Factory, Dondaicha, Jalgaon. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of PSC Poles falling under Chapter No. 6807.00 of CETA, 1985. They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 74/93, dated 28-2-1993. The said notification grants excise duty exemption on goods manufactured by a factory belonging to the State Government and such goods are intended for use by any department of that Government. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellant is a company registered under Companies Act and is separate from and independent of the State Government and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Larger Bench in the said case held that State Electricity Boards are statutory authorities different from Government irrespective of control or financing and they are not a Government department and therefore, the mere ownership of 100% capital by State Government does not make a body on par with State Government. Accordingly, it was held that PSC Poles manufactured for own use by a State Electricity Board cannot be considered as use by the Government department and accordingly it was held that benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E. would not be available. 5. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) further submits that in the respondent's own case, this Tribunal vide order No. A/860 to 874/12/EB/C-II, dated 3-9-2012 held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 has followed the ratio of the Larger Bench decision. In view of the above decision, we hold that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E. and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeals filed by the Revenue. 7.2 As regards the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000, this issue has not been considered either by the lower adjudicating authority or by the lower appellate authority. A matter which has not been considered by these authorities cannot be considered by this Tribunal. Therefore we cannot consider the respondent's claim to benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. However, the respondent is at lib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
