Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

Collector Of C. Ex. vs Debpara Tea Company Ltd. on 6 April, 1988

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Debpara Tea Company Ltd. on 6 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989 (43) ELT 690 Tri Del


ORDER

G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President

1. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta has, in the present appeal, assailed the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-8-1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) ought not to have allowed a uniform reduction of 10% of the electricity generated in terms of Notification No. 105/78, dated 27-4-1978 which, according to Appellate Collector, is admissible in the case of a generating station but not the respondents’ electricity generating unit situated in their factory. In support of this contention, the definition of “generating station” in the Electricity Act has been cited.

2. The respondents have filed a cross-objection in which it has been urged that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in holding the duty was payable on the quantum of electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping of water.

3. We have heard Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the appellant-Collector. None appeared for the respondents. However, they had sent written submissions.

4. The definition of “generating station” does not in our view, restrict itself to Hydro Thermal etc. generating stations which produce electricity for public distribution and consumption. The definition takes within its purview “any station for generating electricity. We do not see the basis for the appellant-Collector’s contention that the generating station attached to a factory cannot be considered to a “generating station” for the purpose of Notification No. 105/78. We reject this contention and, in consequence, the Collector’s appeal.

5. Turning to the cross-objection filed by the respondents, we note that the appellants are manufactures of tea. We are, therefore, of the view that the Collector (Appeals) has correctly held that electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping of water was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 52/78 which conferred duty exemption on electricity used inter alia in an industrial unit. In this view the cross-objection has no merit and is also dismissed.