ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the appellant’s Company ‘belonging to or maintained by the State Government. This position has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraphs 6.01, 6.02 and 6.03 of the impugned order. The relevant paragraphs are as under –
6.01 I have carefully considered the records of the case and grounds of appeal. The point for determination is whether the appellant-company, a
fully owned Government of Kerala Undertaking, satisfy the definition of as “belonging to or maintained by State Government”, in terms of the Explanation VIII of the Notification No. 1 /93, dated 28-2-93 as amended.
6.02 “It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the Notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of exemption, he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority”. The Hori’ble Supreme Court observed in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (S.C.)].
6.03 As per Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, a “Government company” means any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or by any State Government or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments and include a company which is a subsidiary of a Government company. When 100% share capital of KSCDC is owned by the Kerala State Government though registered as a company under the Companies Act, it is a fully owned State Government Undertaking satisfying the definition of as “belonging to or maintained by State Government” mentioned in Explanation VIII of Notification No 1/93 and thus two factories of the appellant are separately eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93″.
3. Shri Narasimha Murthy, JDR, for Revenue tried to convince us by referring to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 156, that the company constituted by the Government cannot be considered as a factory “belonging to or maintained by” the Government, but in vain.
4. On the other hand, Shri S. Raghu, learned Advocate for the appellants drew our attention to a series of decisions including decision in the case of TANSI v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 131 (Tri.) = 2001 (44) RLT 419 (CEGAT – Che.).
5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on submissions made by both sides, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the view we have taken, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.