9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Company carrying on business of coal mining in Andhra Pradesh. They have three generating stations mainly to supply power to the mines to produce coal at Kothagudem, Belampalli and Ramagundam. The power generated in the three generating stations is mainly used for producing coal in the mines. Electricity has been brought under the purview of the Central Excise Act with effect from 1-3-1978 as Tariff Item 11 E. The appellants have been submitting monthly returns in RT-12 giving particulars of the electricity generated and distributed. According to the appellants they are entitled to certain concession in regard to the quantity of electricity consumed under Notification 105/78, dated 27-4-1978. They also claim exemption under Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Explanatory Memorandum circulated separately in connection with the Finance Bill for 1978 it is stated as follows :- "It is the intention of the Government to confine the levy to such current as is produced by the various generating stations, both in the Public and Private Sectors, and meant for supply to different classes of consumers." 4. On careful consideration of the contentions, we are of the view that there are no grounds made out to re-consider the earlier decision. In the prior case, the Tribunal has held that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 105/78 because they have to be treated as "generating station" in the general sense of the terms as used in the Electricity Act particularly when no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an industrial unit while the concessional rate of duty provided under Notification 105/78 envisages partial exemption to all units where electricity is generated. There is nothing in the Rules or the Acts to hold that the appellants should be denied the benefit of a concessional rate of duty because they avail the exemption under a different Notification intended for a different purpose. In 1983-ECR-1021 (Collector of Customs v. BHEL) the Tribunal has held that there is no bar to avail of more than one benefit unless it is barred categorically. 6. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates the intention of the Government when they introduced the Tariff Item. It could not be said that the subsequent Notification 105/78 would apply only to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
