2018 (7) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mises for undertaking the process of manufacture, it cannot be said that all these manufacturers are doing their activity within a factory so as to attract condition No. (vii) of para 2 of N/N. 8/1999. The show cause notice has been issued alleging that the value of clearances effected from TNEB Yard, Samayanallur exceeded the exemption limit. When each contractor has to be considered as an independent manufacturer, the demand raised against one contractor stating that clearances effected from yard including the clearances made by other contractor is exceeding the prescribed limit cannot sustain. Appeal dismissed - decided against revenue.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ufacture was done within the premises of TNEB yard and on completion of manufacture the poles were taken into custody by TNEB for their use. Therefore, the possession of the manufactured poles from the contractor would amount to clearance for home consumption and when the manufacture is done by various contractors within the same yard, as per condition No. (vii) under para 2 of Notification No. 8/1999 dated 28.2.1999, where the specified goods are cleared by one or more manufacturers from a factory, the exemption shall apply to the aggregate value of clearances mentioned against each of the manufacturers. There were other contractors who were also awarded the contract and were manufacturing poles in the very same yard. Since the value of cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lakhs. Each contractor is an independent manufacturer and the value of his clearances for the preceding financial year has to be considered. 5. In the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (47) ELT 62 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had held that each contractor is the actual manufacturer and demand of duty on the poles from Electricity Board cannot sustain. The said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 (62) ELT A52 (SC). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. TNEB vide judgment dated 20.9.2017 in CMA No. 2715/2015 has taken a similar view wherein it was held that no duty demand can be made against TNEB for manufacture of RCC poles and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X