Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1998 (3) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reon provided that such goods are manufactured by the company belonging to the State Government and such goods are intended for use by any Department of Export. It was alleged that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 100 of 1984 filed by the U.P. State Electricity Board held that the Electricity Board though within the meaning of articles of Association, is not the Department of State Government and as such cannot claim exemption under Notification No. 57/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. It was alleged that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in that case decided the question whether the electricity fabrication unit, Naini of the UPSEB is a Department of the State Government and answered it in negative. 2. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counsel submits that Explanations 5 and 8 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. stipulates that in case a number of units are maintained by the State Government for the purpose of small scale exemption, the clearance of each unit alone shall be taken. He submits that in view of this explanation and in view of the fact that Electricity Pole Manufacturing units are maintained by the State Government, therefore, only their clearances alone should be taken for the purpose of applying the exemption either under Notification No. 175/86 or 1/93. He submits that since the units are under the State Government, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty, therefore, longer period invokation was not warranted in their case. He, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assification list effective from 1-4-1994, there was mention for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 74/93. However, we find that this classification was not approved instead another classification list in which the claim of the assessee was under Notification No. 1/93 was approved. We also note that the ld. Counsel brought to our notice the simple fact that Notification No. 74/93 was dated 28-2-1993 whereas it has been invoked for clearance effected from 1-4-1990 that is much before the introduction of Notification No. 74/93. We note that the Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in Explanations 5 and 8 inter alia stipulates that if there are more than one units maintained by the State Government then the clearances of that unit alone shall be....