2003 (5) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. -  This is an appeal filed by Revenue. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the appellant's Company 'belonging to or maintained by' the State Government. This position has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraphs 6.01, 6.02 and 6.03 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pposed intention of the exempting authority". The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (S.C.)]. 6.03 As per Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, a "Government company" means any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orted in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 156, that the company constituted by the Government cannot be considered as a factory "belonging to or maintained by" the Government, but in vain. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. Raghu, learned Advocate for the appellants drew our attention to a series of decisions including decision in the case of TANSI v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2001 (131 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X