9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for disposal of these appeals are that M/s Electricity Pole manufacturing, Unit, Sub-Division I, UPSEB (now known as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.), Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow is engaged in the manufacture of PCC poles falling under sub-heading 6807.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period with effect from January 2002 to June, 2002 which is the subject matter of appeal No.E/1958/2005, the respondent cleared PCC poles valued at Rs.16,12,925/- at nil rate of duty claiming benefit of SSI exemption under said Notification No.8/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001. Similarly, during the period July, 2002 to December 2002, the respondent cleared PCC poles valued at nil rate of duty claiming the benefit of exemption under notification No.8/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n original, the respondent preferred appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the parties relies upon the earlier judgment of the CEGAT in the respondent s own cases took the view that respondent was entitled to exemption under the notification and set aside the impugned orders in original. Aggrieved of the above referred orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Department has approached the Tribunal in appeal. 5. The short issue involved in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to exemption under notifications in question. 6. Shri R.K. Verma, learned A.R. for the Department submits that SSI exemption under Notification No.8/201-CE dated 1.3.2001 and 8/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 is available to a man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to eligibility of exemption under Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 held that Electricity Board is not a Department of the State Government, as such, the Chhattishgarh State Electricity Board is not entitled for exemption under notification. It is submitted that the ratio of the above referred of Larger Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of this case , as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Shri S.P. Singh , Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that the judgment relied upon the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that language of Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28.2.93 is different from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
