9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als arise from the common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 26 & 27, dated 23-2-1990 passed by the CCE(A), Chennai rejecting the appellants on the ground that SSI benefit under Notification No. 175/86 cannot be granted to them as the words "or by a State Industries Corporation or by a State Small Industries Corporation have been inserted only by amending Notification No. 47/88-C.E. and the same does not have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s accepted their contention that the benefit is required to be granted in view of the explanation under clause V of the Notification 175/86-C.E. and in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Chief Inspector of Factories & Ors. as reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 761 (S.C.) = 1998 (77) ECR 656 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision in their own case as reported in 1999 (82) ECR 330, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affairs of the factory and they should be deemed to be the occupier. Therefore, if it is a case of a factory in fact and in reality owned or controlled by the Central Govt. or the State Govt. or any local authority, then in case of such factory, the person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of the factory shall have to be deemed to be the occupier, even though for better management of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
