9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment department. In the appellant’s own case this Tribunal vide order dated 3-9-2012 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 - Decided in favor of Revenue. - E/3264 & 3265/2004-Mum and Cross Objection No. E/CO/2/2005-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/980-982/2013-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 6-11-2013 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan and Anil Choudhary Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Kelkar, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.R. Chandrasekharan, Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? (ii) Exemption under Notification No. 74/93, dated 28-2-1993 is available to them or not. 3. The lower appellate authority thereafter decided the matter relating to the eligibility of the respondent to Notification No. 74/93 and relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Electricity Poles Manufacturing v. CCE - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 96 (Tri.), wherein it was held that UP State Electricity Board belonging to the UP State Government would be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E. in respect of electric poles manufactured by them, allowed the benefit to the respondent, MSEB Pole Factory. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is before us. 4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SSI Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7.1 From the records, we find that the issue for consideration both before the adjudicating authority as well as the lower appellate authority was only whether MSEB would be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E. In view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) v. CCE, Raipur (cited supra), which prevails over the decision relied upon by the lower appellate authority in the case of Electricity Poles Manufacturing v. CCE, it has to be held that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E. as use of the PSC poles by MSEB is not used by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
