TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds decision on auxiliary plants' benefit eligibility under Notification No. 51/78. Chief Engineer's explanation key.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the Respondents, ruling that the auxiliary plants were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 51/78. It ... Electricity generating stations - Exemption under Notification No. 51/78-C.E. Issues:- Incorrect extension of benefit of Notification No. 51/78 to the Respondents- Eligibility of auxiliary plants for the benefit of the notification- Interpretation of the proviso to Notification No. 51/78Analysis:The Department filed an appeal challenging the extension of the benefit of Notification No. 51/78 to the Respondents, arguing that the auxiliary units were not generating stations as required by the notification. The U.P. State Electricity Board used power from the main grid to start their auxiliary units, which then switched to using power generated by the auxiliary units. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the auxiliary units were not generating stations but meant for transmission and distribution of electricity. The Chief Engineer explained that electricity from the main grid was used to start the auxiliary stations, after which only electricity from the auxiliary stations was utilized. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Respondents' contention and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, prompting the Revenue to file the appeal.During the appeal, the Departmental Representative argued that the auxiliary plants were not engaged in electricity generation but in distribution, transmission, and collateral activities, thus not eligible for the notification's benefit. On the other hand, the Respondents' Advocate contended that there was no evidence that electricity generated by one station was used for transmission purposes. The Chief Engineer's clarification supported the Respondents' position, stating that electricity from generating stations was used solely to start the auxiliary stations, after which only auxiliary station-generated electricity was utilized.Upon reviewing the notification and the Chief Engineer's expert opinion, the Tribunal found that the proviso to Notification No. 51/78 required electricity to be produced by generating stations and supplied to auxiliary plants for generation purposes to qualify for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the Chief Engineer's clarification remained unchallenged by any expert opinion or technical literature from the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal as it found no merit in the Department's arguments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
