9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Government scheme known as 'State Rural Electrification Programme' run by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant during the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal were availing the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.74/1993-CE dated 28.02.1993 which grants exemption from whole of excise duty to the goods manufactured when the same are manufactured in the factory belonging to state government and intended to use by any department of the government. 2. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 11.12.2014 who seized 2660 PCC Poles on the ground that the benefit of the Exemption Notification is not available to them, inasmuch as the appellant cannot be called to be a st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia but the same did not cease to be a State Government undertaking or a corporation owned or controlled by State Government and hence they were eligible for full exemption in terms of Notification No74/93-CE dated 28.02.1993. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad V/s M/s Electricity Pole Manufacturing- 2001 (129) E.L.T. A-311 (S.C.). As a result of the said decision the appellant continued to avail the exemption. However, it is seen that subsequently the correctness of the said decision was doubted and the issue was referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's Larger Bench in their decision reported as Assistant Engineer (Civil) P.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is decided in their favor, they are entitled to the notification. In such a scenario longer cannot be invoked against them. 5. Otherwise also it is well settled law that when the issue stand referred to Larger Bench on the ground of doubting the correctness of the earlier orders, no mala-filed can be attributed to the assessee. This stands so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Continental Foundation Jt. Venture V/s CCE, Chandigarh reported as 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.). As such, we are of the view that the longer period is not available to the Revenue. However, a part of the demand may fall within the limitation period for which the matter is being remanded for requantification. As regards confiscation of the goods wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
