2002 (10) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... observe that on earlier two occasions also when the matters were posted for hearing the Appellants had requested for adjournment. The learned S.D.R. points out that the issue involved has already been decided against the appellants in their own appeal as reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 554 (T). The Appellants have also under their letter dated 7-1-2002 has requested for adjourning the hearing as their SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for judgment on similar issue. In view of this, the adjournment request is not acceded to and the appeals are taken up for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned S.D.R. 3. The Appellants have submitted in their memorandum of Appeal that the Central Electric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be covered by two different statutes; that the situation which prevailed prior to the registration under the Factories Act continues after such registration; that the Superintendent Central Excise, under letter dated 19-1-89, had clarified that they were entitled to exemption from payment of duty; that the Adjudicating Authority has distinguished the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A 1262-1263/97, dated 16-9-97 in the case of Central Coalfield Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur on the ground that the said workshop was not registered under the Factories Act; that the fact is that the workshop considered by the Tribunal was also registered under the Factories Act. It has been finally mentioned in the memorandums of Appeal that the decision of the Adjud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded by the Tribunal in Appellants own case - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. C.C.E. Raipur, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 554 (T). In para 5 of the said decision, this Tribunal has held under: "5. We have considered the submission of both the sides. Notification No. 63/95-C.E., exempts the goods manufactured in workshop situated within the precincts of mines. It is not in dispute that the workshop at Korba is not situated within the premises of mines. The learned Consultant has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Central Coalfields' case in support of contention that precincts cannot be restricted to an area of four kilometre. In the said case the adjudicating authority himself has held the workshop to be the precinct of the nearest mine whic....