ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the Order of Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. The learned Counsel stated that the issue basically relates to the interpretation of Notification No. 52/78.
3. This Notification provides that the electricity produced by a generating station, an industrial unit or an establishment (including Railways) and used in such generating station (including its auxiliary plant), if any, industrial units or other establishments as the case may be is entitled for exemption.
4. The appellants have a cement factory at Sone Valley and have a captive mine at Baulia across the river Sone. It uses a ropeway for bringing the mineral for use in the factory. The issue relates to the electricity used for operating this ropeway.
5. It was their contention that the electricity so used is also entitled for exemption as the Baulia mining operations are a part of the industrial activity of the factory and they together constitute a unit in which the electricity is consumed.
6. The fact that the mines are located a few kilometres away outside the boundary of the main factory does not make any difference. In this connection, he would like to rely upon the Tribunal’s order reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 570.
7. It is also his contention that the demands were in any case time barred as there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts involved.
8. The learned D.R. reiterated the Department’s viewpoints and stated that the mines located far away from the factory cannot be considered as a part of the industrial unit. He also stated that the case reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 570 does not help the appellants but the Department. Furthermore, the judgment reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.) and relied by the appellant also does not help their cause. Further the benefit of the time bar to the extent admissible has already been allowed by the Collector. She pleaded for rejection of the appeal.
9. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the Notification grants the benefit not only to the electricity consumed in a generating station but also in an industrial unit or an establishment.
10. The case of Oil India reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 570 is distinguishable on facts. But the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 have to be kept in view. They indicate that “process” includes an operation or activity in relation to manufacture; And handling and transfer of raw materials, if integrally connected with the process of manufacture, will also constitute a process in relation to manufacture.
11. That apart, it appears to us that while mine cannot be considered as a part of the factory and even the two together cannot constitute an industrial unit, in a broader sense, they can be considered as parts of an integrated establishment complex. We also consider from the way the Notification is worded, that the intention appears to be to extend the benefit in case of captive consumption by industrial units as well as complex integrated establishments.
12. As such, we hold that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of this Notification. Hence we accept the appeal.