TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (1) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. After notice had been duly issued, the matter was taken up for hearing today, the 17th January, 1983. 2.  The revision application, which has been filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants"), involves the interpretation of Government of India Notification No. 52/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. This notification provides for exemption from Central Excise duty on electricity falling under Item No. 11E of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The exemption is subject to the following proviso :- "Provided that it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such electricity is produced by a generating s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive blocks, training centre, stores and fire and safety offices, even if these places were outside the Central Excise licensed premises as he held these to be nevertheless considered part and parcel of the refinery. The Appellate Collector upheld the Assistant Collector's order and rejected the claim of the appellants in respect of the electricity supplied to the township, hospital and recreation clubs for the appellants' employees, the marketing office, and the office and barracks occupied by the personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force attached to the factory; and also in respect of the electricity supplied to contractors engaged for maintenance of the appellants machinery even if the electricity so supplied was used within the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of certain premises (such as the administrative office and the training centre) which were outside the boundary wall, and even to the water works, which were seven kilometres away, the Appellate Collector was not logically justified in excluding certain other premises which were essential for the operation of the refinery though outside the boundary wall. 7.  On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Tayal referred to the Tribunal's Order No. B-17/83, dated the 7th January, 1983 where the same issue had come up for consideration and where the Tribunal had upheld the view of the lower authority that the exemption would not apply to the electricity consumed in the housing colonies, schools, hospitals and recreation clubs attached to an ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption has to be considered and not with reference to whatever might be the position of an establishment other than a generating station or an industrial unit. 9.  Since the exemption is admissible to the electricity used in the industrial unit, namely to the refinery, this expression must be interpreted so as to cover what can reasonably be deemed to be part of the said industrial unit. In this connection we would not lay too much stress on the question whether the facilities for which the exemption is claimed is or is not within the boundary wall which encloses the actual manufacturing equipment. However, we consider it necessary, on a reasonable interpretation of the notification, that any such facility should be something which e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this notification was issued for an entirely different purpose connected with national security etc. It cannot determine the scope of an exemption notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 13.  Electricity used in the marketing office of the appellants has also been held as not eligible for the exemption. In this connection, the appellants representative had submitted that it was illogical to rule out the marketing office when the exemption had been allowed for electricity used in the administrative office and even the training centre, though these were also situated outside the boundary wall. He submitted that the marketing office, though outside the boundary wall, was adjacent to it. He also argued that had the marketin....