1999 (11) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Ashok Kumar, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Appellants filed this appeal againat the order-in-original dated 17-6-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants are not a factory belonged to or maintained by the State Government. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that M.P. State Mining Corpn. Ltd. is a state. He, further, relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TANSI v. C.C.E., Madras reported in 1999 (82) ECR 330 and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that M/s. TANSI is a State Govt. Undertaking maintained by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence each unit's clearances qualify for the exemption as provided under Notification No. 175/8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the Collector of Central Excise. 4. Heard both sides. 5.  In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is denied to the appellants. The contention of the appellants is that the units are owned by the State Government. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit as per Explanation V of the Notificat....