TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 13-4-1986. 2. For appreciating the aforesaid question, it is necessary to notice the facts. The appellant was registered as a Company under the Indian Companies Act as per G.O. Ms. No. 4704/Ind.Spl. dated 1-10-1965. All the shares of the company are held by the Government or the officials of the Government in their official capacity. The first Board of Directors of the Company consisted of the Secretary to Government, industries, labour and Co-operation as the Chairman, Director of Industries & Commerce, Secretary to Government, licence Department, Deputy Secretary, (Small Industries) Industries, Labour & Co-operation Department, Special Officer, Office of the Director of Industries & C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the State Government holds all the shares, or the majority of the paid up share capital of the Company." For the aforesaid purpose, the learned single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1999) 4 SCC 458 (Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue Department). 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the decision of the learned single Judge, submitted that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1999) 4 SCC 458 (cited supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and on the other hand the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 761 (S.C.) = (1998) 5 SCC 738 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant it can be safely concluded that such amendment, whereunder reference has been made to State Industries Corporation and State Small Industries Corporation, can be said to be clarificatory. In other words, this amendment can be said to only clarify what was the original meaning and the intention of the notification. 8. Law is now well settled that at times the amendments are made which are clarificatory in nature which only emphasis the meaning which was originally intended. For the aforesaid purpose, reference can be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 (Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and another), which was specifically approved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from the decision reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 131 (TANSI v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai). In such decision, the CEGAT has accepted the contention that amendment is clarificatory and has given the benefit of exemption. It is also asserted by the appellant and not refuted by the Counsel for the Department that such subsequent decision of the CEGAT has not been challenged by the Department. As a matter of fact, similar decision was also made by CEGAT in an earlier decision reported in 1999 (82) ECR 330 (TANSI v. CCE, Madras), wherein the, benefit of the exemption was made available to TANSI. 10. Having regard to these decisions and particularly keeping in view the intention of the notification, we are inclined to accept the ....