Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik vs M/S. Psc Pole Factory (Mseb) on 11 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO.E/2833/04 & E/CO-600/04-Mum
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/257/916/NSK/APL/2004 dtd. 29.6.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (A), Nashik )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr S.S.Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, Member(Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik :
Appellant VS M/s. PSC Pole Factory (MSEB) Respondent Appearance Shri A.K.Prabhakar, Supdt. (A.R.). for Appellant None for Respondent CORAM:
Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President Mr.Sahab Singh, Member(Technical) Date of hearing: 11/07/2012 Date of decision 11/07/2012 ORDER NO.
Per : S.S.Kang Respondents seek adjournment. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) vs CCE, Raipur 2008(232)ELT.628(Tri-LB). Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined.
2. Heard the Ld. Supdt.(A.R.) for the Revenue.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. PSC Pole Factory are engaged in the manufacture of PSC Poles falling under Chapter sub-heading 6807.90 of the Tariff and the same were cleared by claiming the benefit of Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.02.93. The show-cause notice was issued to the respondents denying the benefit of Notification. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The revenue filed this appeal on the ground that exemption under Notification 74/93-CE is not available to the State Electricity Board. This issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.Engineer vs CCE, Raipur (supra) and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that the State Electricity Board is not a Govt.Department. The benefit of Notification 74/93-CE is not available to the goods manufactured by the State Electricity Board as the benefit of Notification is available to the goods manufactured in the factory belonging to the State Government intended for use for the Govt. Department. In view of the above decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, we find that the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority afresh and to look into other issues such as limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and after affording an opportunity to the respondents.
4. Cross- Objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in court) Sahab Singh Member(Technical) S. S. Kang Vice President pv 3