Deputy Engineer denied excise duty exemption for PSC Poles; advised to pursue benefit claim under another notification.

The Tribunal held that the Deputy Engineer (Civil) at a PSC Pole Factory was not eligible for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 74/93 as the PSC poles were not used by a government department. The Tribunal did not address the benefit claim under Notification No. 8/2000, advising the respondent to pursue it before the adjudicating authority. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the cross objection also addressed in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 74/93 for PSC poles manufactured by a State Electricity Board.
2. Consideration of benefit under Notification No. 8/2000.

Eligibility for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 74/93:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, concerning the eligibility of a Deputy Engineer (Civil) at a PSC Pole Factory for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 74/93. The respondent claimed the exemption as they were engaged in manufacturing PSC Poles for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The lower appellate authority allowed the benefit based on a Tribunal decision related to a similar case involving the UP State Electricity Board. However, the Revenue contended that State Electricity Boards are separate entities from the government, as established by a Larger Bench decision in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) v. CCE, Raipur. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption as the PSC poles were not used by a government department, thus setting aside the lower authority's decision.

Consideration of benefit under Notification No. 8/2000:
The Tribunal did not address the respondent's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000, as it was not considered by the lower authorities. It was stated that matters not deliberated by the lower authorities could not be entertained by the Tribunal. The respondent was advised to pursue this claim before the adjudicating authority if desired. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the cross objection also being addressed in the judgment.

---