TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nine units under the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India involved in the production of Circulation Coins and Medals. They were availing exemption from Central Excise duty on all goods vide Notification No. 62/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995, in terms of Serial No.7 of the said Notification, wherein it is mentioned that "all goods shall be exempt from whole of excise duty if manufactured in Mints belonging to the Government of India." 3. Subsequently, vide Office Memorandum No. F4/17/05-Cy.ll dated 10.02.2006, a new company by the name of M/s. Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India ('SPMCIL' for short) was incorporated with limited liability by shares under the Companies Act, 1956 as a wholly owned company by the Government of India and all the assets & liabilities, existing contracts, agreements and MOUs entered into by the nine units of Department of Economic Affairs were transferred to SPMCIL w.e.f. 10.02.2006. Hence, the appellant-unit became one of the units of SPMCIL w.e.f. 10.02.2006. 4. Show Cause Notices bearing No. 14/Khidirpur1/Commr/CE/Kol-V/08 dated 02.06.2008 for the period 10.02.2006 to 31.08.2007 and No. 19/Khid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supervision of the Government of India. (iv) Thus, both in substance and in law, the Mint (appellant) continued to remain an institution "belonging to the Government of India", notwithstanding its corporatisation and hence eligible for exemption provided vide Notification No. 62/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995. (v) It is further submitted that the Central Government issued Notification No. 3/2010-C.E. dated 27.02.2010, whereby Serial No. 7 of Notification No. 62/95-C.E. was substituted, specifically granting exemption to goods manufactured by India Government Mint, Kolkata by providing that: "In the said notification, in the Table, for Serial No. 7 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted..." (vi) The use of the expression "substituted" indicates that the amendment was made to clarify and rationalise the scope of the earlier exemption, particularly in light of the corporatisation of Government Mints, so as to remove any ambiguity regarding the continued applicability of the exemption. The said amendment therefore reinforces the position that the India Government Mint, Kolkata, continued to be regarded as belonging to Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 7 of Notification No. 62/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995 wherein it is categorically mentioned that:- "all goods shall be exempt from whole of excise duty if manufactured in Mints belonging to the Government of India." 9.1. We find that there is no doubt regarding the eligibility of the exemption under Notification No. 62/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995 to the appellant till 10.02.2006. The eligibility of the exemption to the Appellant has been questioned only when a new company by the name of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL) was incorporated, with limited liability by shares, under the Companies Act. It is on record that on corporatization of the Appellant company, all the assets and liabilities, existing contracts, agreements and MOUs entered into by the nine units of the Department of Economic Affairs were transferred to SPMCIL w.e.f. 10.02.2006. We find that the Department took the view that after 10.02.2006, SPMCIL ceased to be a part of the Government of India as it had been incorporated under the Companies Act. 10. We have gone through the scope of objects of the company after its incorporation, as contained in its Memorandum of Association. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etals to be used in the minting of coins; and such other documents as may be required by the Central and/or State Governments, Public sector undertakings, municipal and local bodies, Financial Institutions, any other governmental/non-Governmental agency or authority, or entity in/outside India approved by the Board and/or Government of India. (d) To carry on the business of dealing in plant, machinery and equipment required for developing, designing, making of bank/currency notes or security printing, and such other materials and things that may be required for carrying on any or all the business of the Company as herein stated." 10.1. From the above, it can be seen that the company continued to perform the same sovereign functions which were being performed prior to its incorporation as a company under the Companies Act w.e.f. 10.02.2006. 11. We also take note of the fact that during the period under dispute, 100% of the shares of the appellant-company were held by the Government of India, through the President of India. A perusal of the Table indicating the Shareholding Pattern, as placed on record by the appellant, clearly reveals that the appellant was wholly own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Hindustan Shipyard, which is a Government company registered under the Companies Act, cannot be considered as an agent of the President of India or the Central Government and has a separate legal entity from its shareholders. Accordingly, the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 56/75-C.E. dated 01.03.1975 was disallowed by the Tribunal in the said case. However, in the present case, we find that SPMCIL remained as a wholly owned Government Company, with 100% of its shares held by the Government of India, through the President of India, even after its incorporation under the Companies Act. Further, we find that the functions carried out by the appellant/Mint, namely production of circulation coins and related sovereign instruments, are core sovereign functions of national importance, undertaken exclusively under the authority and supervision of the Government of India. Thus, we find that both in substance and in law, the Mint (appellant) continued to remain an institution "belonging to the Government of India", notwithstanding its corporatisation. This is not the case in the case of Hindustan Shipyard cited by the Revenue. Thus, we observe that the facts and circumstan....