2009 (5) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m Srinivasan, Advs. for Appellant. Dr. Gautam Ray, Jt. CDR for Respondent. Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy: In view of the fact that the appellant public sector undertaking has since obtained the necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes, we allow the Miscellaneous Applications, recall the earlier Orders of Dismissal and restore the Stay Petitions and Appeals to their respective numbers. 2. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that the Appeals can be decided on merit and hence, we waive the requirement of predeposit and proceed to hear the Appeals. 3. In this case, the Adjudicating Commissioner has held in the impugned Order that the Appellants are producing electricity which amounts to manufacture as per Clause (i) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board (supra), had upheld imposition of Central Excise duty on electricity, electricity being manufactured goods as defined in the Central Excise Act '44. Therefore, we find that the argument of the appellants that the services involved are not liable to tax as Business Auxiliary Service has to be accepted. Such an activity is not covered by Business Auxiliary Service." He further states that the issue decided in the case of CMS (I) Operations & Maintenance Co. P. Ltd. (cited supra) is identical to the issue at hand and hence, in the case of the Appellants, it should also be held that they have manufactured "electricity" and therefore, they have not supplied any 'Business Auxili....