9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Ms. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant. S/Shri P. Wilson, ASG and K. Ravindranath, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: P.K. Misra, J.]. - The present appeal is filed against the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2255 of 1995, whereunder the present appellant had challenged the order passed by the present Respondent No. 2. The question relates to availability of exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 13-4-1986. 2. For appreciating the aforesaid question, it is necessary to notice the facts. The appellant was registered as a Company under the Indian Companies Act as per G.O. Ms. No. 4704/Ind.Spl. dated 1-10-1965. All the shares of the company are held by the Government or the officials of the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution, the Company nevertheless remains a distinct and separate legal entity, with capacity to sue and to be sued, to contract, as also to enforce the obligations arising from such contracts. The Company cannot, therefore, be regarded as an integral part of the State Government and exemptions granted to the State Government cannot be regarded as encompassing the Companies in which the State Government holds all the shares, or the majority of the paid up share capital of the Company." For the aforesaid purpose, the learned single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1999) 4 SCC 458 ( Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue Department ). 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory "belonging to or maintained by the Central Government or by a State Government, or by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission". The amendment effected by Notification 47/88-CE. with effect from 1-3-1988 refers to State Industries Corporation and State Small Industries Corporation. It is no doubt true that such amendment has not been made specifically retrospective. However, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant it can be safely concluded that such amendment, whereunder reference has been made to State Industries Corporation and State Small Industries Corporation, can be said to be clarificatory. In other words, this amendment can be said to only clarify what was the original meaning and the intention of the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1999 (113) EL.T. 761 (S.C.) = (1998) 5 SCC 738 (cited supra) can be made applicable. It is also interesting to note that in a subsequent decision, the CEGAT has given the benefit of such exemption to the very same appellant as it is apparent from the decision reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 131 ( TANSI v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai ). In such decision, the CEGAT has accepted the contention that amendment is clarificatory and has given the benefit of exemption. It is also asserted by the appellant and not refuted by the Counsel for the Department th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
