TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (Technical) (Final Order Nos. A-224-225/Kol/2009, Stay Order Nos. S/119-120/Kol./2009 and Misc. Order Nos. M/82-83/Kol./2009 dt. 7.5.2009 certified on 15.5.2009 in Application Nos. MA/ROA/121 399/2008 Stay Petition Nos. SP/202/2008 and 365/2007 and Appeal Nos. ST/53/2008 and ST/37/2007) S/Shri Ravi Raghvan and Raghuram Srinivasan, Advs. for Appellant. Dr. Gautam Ray, Jt. CDR for Respondent. Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy: In view of the fact that the appellant public sector undertaking has since obtained the necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes, we allow the Miscellaneous Applications, recall the earlier Orders of Dismissal and restore the Stay Petitions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "As per this definition, any activity involving manufacture of any goods within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not subject to tax under the head Business Auxiliary Service. It is a settled position that electricity is goods manufactured in the sense envisaged in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Orient Paper Industries Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board (supra), had upheld imposition of Central Excise duty on electricity, electricity being manufactured goods as defined in the Central Excise Act '44. Therefore, we find that the argument of the appellants that the services involved are not liable to tax as Business Auxiliary Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion rendered by any superior Court, has also been brought to our notice. Further, a definition of manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an inclusive definition and therefore, it is very clear that it is not necessary that all the inclusive definitions should be satisfied together in any particular case. The request of the Learned Jt. CDR to defer the decision in respect of the Appeals for a future date, is also not acceptable in view of the settled position of law and precedent decision of the Tribunal on the same, which has not been reversed by any higher judicial forum. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CMS (I) Operations Maintenance Co. (cited supra), we hold th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
