TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 to December 2007 by the original authority and the setting aside of recovery of duty of Rs. 29,38,659 ordered for the period from January 2008 to October 2008 by the original authority from The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Workshop, Water Resources Department of Government of Maharashtra in order-in-original no. 01/CEX/Commr/ 2009 dated 29th January 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad and order-in-appeal no. SR/54/NGP/2010 dated 16th February 2010 of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur respectively. As the issues involved are identical, we dispose off both these appeals by this common order. 2. The case of the tax authorities is that the respondent herein, a gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....draws attention to the decision of the Tribunal in Superintending Engineer v. Collector of Central Excise [1992 (59) ELT 610 (Tribunal)] which has held that '28. The appellants had further contended that each 'Cement Yard' has to be construed as factory and that the clearances of each 'Cement Yard' cannot be clubbed together, as each Chief Engineer of that division in which the 'Cement Yard' is located has to be held as the separate factory and separate manufacturer. This plea has been rejected by the learned Collector. It has been held that the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 or 105/80 cannot be given the wordings of the notifications it is clear that the benefit is available to a manufacturer. The learned Collector held that the manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of the Tribunal in TANSI v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2001 (231) ELT 131 (Tri-Chennai)] which examined the contents of a predecessor notification no. 175/86-CE, and certain relevant rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court with particular reference to Explanation V therein to discard clubbing of clearances of various establishments. According to Learned Counsel, the Tribunal, in a similar vein and with particular reference to the notification claimed by the respondent, had, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department [2014 (301) ELT 347 (Tri-Mumbai)], held that '4. The respondent is the department of State Government and in their factory certain excisable goods were manufacture....