TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Government of India Notification No. 52/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. This notification exempts from the whole of the duty of excise electricity falling under Item No. HE of the Central Excise Tariff, subject to the following proviso. He accordingly rejected the claim of the appellants for refund of duty of ₹ 12,002.34 paid by them under protest, rejected their request for withdrawal and cancellation of demand for ₹ 58,837.22 raised by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Digboi RBC I, and confirmed the demands fon differential duty made by the abovementioned Superintendent consistent with the interpretation given by the Assistant Collector. 5. Against the above order the appellants went in appeal to the Appellate Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lsion of their business and operational requirements they have provided residential accommodation to their employees in Duliajan in the housing colonies built therein by them. They have also set up a hospital for the medical care of their employees, schools for the education of their employees children, and clubs for the recreation of the employees so that they may carry on the business of the appellants efficiently. It is stated that the aforesaid arrangements are wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellants business of production and sale of crude oil and natural gas and without these arrangements, it would not have been at all possible for the appellants to carry on the said business. They have argued that inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground should also be considered by the Tribunal. 11. On behalf of the Department, Shri Tayal accepted that the Order-in-Appeal was not a lengthy order. However, it appeared from it that some explanation was given to the appellants in the course of the hearing before the Appellate Collector. Since, however, the Order-in-Appeal did not contain detailed reasons for the Appellate Collector s decision, he suggested that it might be set aside without going into the merits and the case remanded for de novo decision. 12. On being asked to make his submission on the merits of the case, Shri Tayal submitted that the term factory had been defined in section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to mean any premises including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office (as stated in the Assistant Collector s order) might be considered to be so related. He stressed that since the unit was set up in an out-of-the way place, it was necessary to set up a housing colony and connected facilities. Otherwise, no workers would come to work in the unit. 15. As for the applicability of the term establishment , Shri Raman referred to the example of the Railways and pointed out that there were units of the Railway which engaged in manufacture. It was pointed out to Shri Raman that such of the Departmental undertakings under the Railways as produced goods such as locomotives, would be covered by the expression industrial unit. 16. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Even if the trading side of their activity is taken into account, this distinction would still remain valid. No statutory or other definition of the expression industrial unit has been cited before us to show that the housing colony, etc., should be deemed to be part of the appellants industrial unit . Accordingly, we find that the Assistant Collector was right in holding that the housing colony, etc., would not form part of their industrial unit . 18. The appellants have made an alternative plea that their premises should be treated as an establishment . As observed earlier, this plea was not raised before the lower authorities who would then have had an opportunity of pronouncing on the merits of this submission. No satisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this expression, and not as an establishment , which term is used in contradistinction to the expression industrial unit . The appellants are therefore not entitled to the benefit of the notification under the term establishment . 20. In the result, we find that the electricity consumed in the housing colonies, schools, hospital and recreation clubs of the appellants does not qualify for exemption from Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 52/78-CE dated 1-3-1978. The interpretation of the Assistant Collector in this regard, which has been upheld by the Appellate Collector, is correct. We accordingly reject the revision application. Corrigendum to Order No. D. 17J1983 dated 7-1-1983 passed by the Customs, Excise and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
