9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king (CPSU), engaged interalia in the manufacture of heavy electrical and mechanical equipment relating to generation, transmission and utilization of power. The appellant entered into the agreement with various Government agencies for design, manufacture and supply of various equipments. Since the agreement entered into between the appellant and the contractees provide for the price variation clause, the appellant resorted to provisional assessment in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities accept the provisional price declared by the appellant, subject to execution of requisite bond with appropriate Bank Guarantee. In this case, the appellant had entered into the agreement with Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is exempt from the execution of any Bond". He submits that since the appellant is categorised as a CPSU, there was no necessity or requirement for execution of any bond and payment of Bank Guarantee at the enhanced value as per the guidelines framed by the CBEC, the Apex Body. To support the stand that the appellant is owned and managed by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, the ld. Advocate relies on the following aspects:- (i) 63.06% of the total paid -up share capital of Appellant CPSU is held by the President of India. (ii) U/S 2 (45) of Companies Act 2013 BHEL is a government Company. (iii) All the whole time Executive Directors, Part time Official Directors and Independent (Part time non official directors) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Government, falling under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, are not exempt from Execution of the Bond with Bank Guarantee and the same, can be insisted by the Department. 6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and examined the records. 7. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal is, as to whether, the appellant is to be considered as an "undertaking owned and managed directly by the Ministry" for the purpose of getting the benefit of non-execution of the bond and Bank Guarantee before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities for clearance of excisable goods on provisional basis. 8. I find that in the Directors report, which is an enclosure to the Annual Accounts under the head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and furnishing the Bank Guarantee. 11. I do not appreciate the submissions made by the ld. D.R. that the appellant is not owned and managed by the Central Government for the reason that substantial share holding i.e. 63.06 % in appellants Company is held by the Government of India and the Ministry of Heavy Industries control the affairs of the company not only in appointing the Board of Directors but also deciding the other aspects for functioning of the appellants Company. Further, since the appellant is not an Undertaking belonging to the Government Company, I am of the view that the provisions of para 6.2 in the said Circular will not be applicable in the case of the appellant. 12. In view of above discussion, since the appellant is ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
