TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty None appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite notice. Heard the ld. D.R. for Revenue and perused the records. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of P.S.C poles, classifiable under sub-heading No.6810 9990 of CETA, 1985. It had cleared the goods at 'nil' rate of duty un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The appellant contended that it is an authority constituted by the State of Maharashtra under Section 5 of the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948, as amended and thus, the PSC Poles manufactured by it would be treated as manufactured by a factory of State Government. 4. It is seen that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l settled that summary dismissal of SLP/Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court does not amount to affirmation of the judgment/order of the Court/Tribunal appealed against, on merit. It merely means that the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter. As a matter of fact, learned DR appearing for the Revenue pointed out that the issue involved in the case of Electricity Poles Manufacturing relate....