Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1983 (1) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he matter was taken up for hearing today, the 17th January, 1983. 2. The revision application, which has been filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, (hereinafter referred to as the appellants ), involves the interpretation of Government of India Notification No. 52/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. This notification provides for exemption from Central Excise duty on electricity falling under Item No. 11E of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The exemption is subject to the following proviso :- Provided that it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such electricity is produced by a generating station, an industrial unit or an establishment (including railways) and used in such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e outside the Central Excise licensed premises as he held these to be nevertheless considered part and parcel of the refinery. The Appellate Collector upheld the Assistant Collector s order and rejected the claim of the appellants in respect of the electricity supplied to the township, hospital and recreation clubs for the appellants employees, the marketing office, and the office and barracks occupied by the personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force attached to the factory; and also in respect of the electricity supplied to contractors engaged for maintenance of the appellants machinery even if the electricity so supplied was used within the licensed premises. The Appellate Collector also held that the exemption would not apply t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... boundary wall, and even to the water works, which were seven kilometres away, the Appellate Collector was not logically justified in excluding certain other premises which were essential for the operation of the refinery though outside the boundary wall. 7. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Tayal referred to the Tribunal s Order No. B-17/83, dated the 7th January, 1983 where the same issue had come up for consideration and where the Tribunal had upheld the view of the lower authority that the exemption would not apply to the electricity consumed in the housing colonies, schools, hospitals and recreation clubs attached to an industrial unit. He submitted that the same view should be taken in regard to the similar facilities of the prese .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a generating station or an industrial unit. 9. Since the exemption is admissible to the electricity used in the industrial unit, namely to the refinery, this expression must be interpreted so as to cover what can reasonably be deemed to be part of the said industrial unit. In this connection we would not lay too much stress on the question whether the facilities for which the exemption is claimed is or is not within the boundary wall which encloses the actual manufacturing equipment. However, we consider it necessary, on a reasonable interpretation of the notification, that any such facility should be something which either physically or functionally or both can be considered as included within the scope of the industrial unit. 10. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n exemption notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 13. Electricity used in the marketing office of the appellants has also been held as not eligible for the exemption. In this connection, the appellants representative had submitted that it was illogical to rule out the marketing office when the exemption had been allowed for electricity used in the administrative office and even the training centre, though these were also situated outside the boundary wall. He submitted that the marketing office, though outside the boundary wall, was adjacent to it. He also argued that had the marketing office been inside the boundary wall, the Central Excise authorities would have allowed the benefit of the exemption. We find that there i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates