Captive electricity use and dual excise relief under separate notifications were held independently available on their own terms.

Electricity generated by an industrial unit for captive use in its mines could qualify for both Notification No. 52/78-C.E. and the concessional duty under Notification No. 105/78-C.E. The term "generating station" in Notification No. 105/78-C.E. was read in its ordinary sense, aided by the Electricity Act, because no restricted meaning was provided. Notification No. 52/78-C.E. operated separately by exempting electricity used within the same unit or station, and nothing in the Act or Rules barred simultaneous availability of both benefits where each notification was independently satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, as an industrial unit generating electricity for captive use in its mines, were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/78-C.E. and also the concessional rate under Notification No. 105/78-C.E.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that the expression "generating station" in Notification No. 105/78-C.E. should be understood in its ordinary sense, aided by the Electricity Act, because the notification did not assign any restricted meaning. It further held that Notification No. 52/78-C.E. operated on a distinct footing, granting exemption where electricity generated in an industrial unit or generating station was used within that unit or station. The two notifications served different purposes, and there was nothing in the Act or the Rules to prohibit availing both benefits where each was independently attracted. The Government's explanatory memorandum did not justify narrowing the scope of the later concession.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to both the exemption under Notification No. 52/78-C.E. and the concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 105/78-C.E.

---