TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication requesting for adjournment or otherwise. In the circumstances, we have gone through the records and heard learned Departmental Representative. 3. Learned DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of Refrigeration and Air-conditioning appliances. They had availed concession under Notification No. 56/78, dated 1-3-1978 and supplied six window type air- conditioners 1.5 ton each to M/s. U.P.S.E.B. (Electricity Microwave Telecommunication station at Sultanpur) at concessional rate of 25% B.E.D. and 5% S.E.D. against CT-2 issued by the Supdt., Central Excise, Sultanpur on 11-7-1983 as per details as under :- (i) 2 Nos. vide AR-3A S. No. 10, dated 11-7-1983 vide GP-I No. 66, dated 11-7-1983 to sub-station at Gonigan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not used for the purpose for which the CT-2 was issued. They also quoted a reference of Order-in-Appeal No. 125/CE/ALD/83, dated 19-10-1983 passed by Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi in the case of M/s. U.P.S.E.B. and they further repeated that they were not able to pay the differential duty. 5. The Collector (Appeals) examined two main issues in the impugned order-in-appeal :- 1. Whether the U.P.S.E.B. were entitled to the concessional rate and, 2. If not, then who is liable to pay the differential duty. On the first question, the Collector (Appeals) agreed with the respondents' contention that the Microwave Telecommunication sub-station was an extension of the electricity generating station which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage nor with generation and storage of electricity. It was their contention that the Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding the Microwave Station to be an extension of generating station. There was no material brought on record as to how microwave station constituted an extension of a factory. Microwave station even if it was deemed to be situated in a factory, as its premises are not used for manufacturing or storing any goods, the concession was not available. 7. On the second question as to who would be liable to pay the duty, whether manufacturer or the user, even though learned Collector (Appeals) has not passed any final order, he had made some observations which were in the nature of obiterdicta or secondary pronouncements....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notification No. 56/78 with reference to the CT-2 certificates issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise, Sultanpur. 11. The fact that CT-2 certificates were issued by the Supdt. can only be taken to mean that Chapter X procedure was duly followed. Even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the procedure was not adhered to. 12. The main issue which remains for consideration is whether the establishment in which the air-conditioners were installed was one of those specified in the Schedule to the notification. We notice in this connection that this schedule includes inter alia Thermal & Hydel power stations, telephone exchanges and electricity load despatch centres and factories. The Notification No. 56/78, dated 1-3-1978 (as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isable commodities. It cannot be stored in the place of its 'manufacture' within factory, like other excisable goods. It has to be transmitted immediately through power lines. Generation (production), storage or transmission has to simultaneously take place and control on transmission of electricity is essentially a control on generating process. Microwave station was thus considered extension of the electricity generating stations. I, therefore, observe that the U.P. State Electricity Board were entitled to receive air-conditioners on concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 56/78." 13. We consider that the learned Collector was right in his observations about the special features of power stations and the nature of electr....