Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....dismissed the appeal of the electricity board on the ground that the board (the appellants) should have appealed against the assistant collector's order fixing a formula for computing the consumption of electricity in pump houses for agricultural purposes and not against the order dated 21-4-1981 passed by the superintendent of central excise, patiala, which, according to the collector (appeals), was merely of an implemental nature.2. we have heard shri y.n. chopra, consultant, for the appellants and smt. d. saxena, s.d.r., for the respondent.3. the superintendent's order dated 21-4-1981 finalises the provisional assessments made earlier in respect of electricity generated by the punjab state electricity board during the year 1979-80 on the basis of a formula approved by the assistant collector, patiala for working out the quantum of electricity supplied for agricultural purposes. the order also demands a sum of rs. 6,30,800.20 as differential duty with a direction that the amount be debited in the personal ledger account.the demand appears to be on the basis (as clarified in superintendent's letter dated 27-6-1981) of disallowing the electricity consumption of two lamps for.....

Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal cited above by which the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Electricity Board on the ground that the Board (the appellants) should have appealed against the Assistant Collector's order fixing a formula for computing the consumption of electricity in pump houses for agricultural purposes and not against the order dated 21-4-1981 passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Patiala, which, according to the Collector (Appeals), was merely of an implemental nature.

2. We have heard Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant, for the appellants and Smt. D. Saxena, S.D.R., for the respondent.

3. The Superintendent's order dated 21-4-1981 finalises the provisional assessments made earlier in respect of electricity generated by the Punjab State Electricity Board during the year 1979-80 on the basis of a formula approved by the Assistant Collector, Patiala for working out the quantum of electricity supplied for agricultural purposes. The order also demands a sum of Rs. 6,30,800.20 as differential duty with a direction that the amount be debited in the personal ledger account.

The demand appears to be on the basis (as clarified in Superintendent's letter dated 27-6-1981) of disallowing the electricity consumption of two lamps for each tube well on the ground that the "lighting of pump house is not essential and is not practically registered by electric meters installed when the tube well motor is not working".

4. In the above context, Shri Y.N. Chopra drew our attention to this Tribunal's order No. 181/85-D, dated 16-5-1985 in appeal No. ED/(SB) A.No. 2880 of 1984-D Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala by which it was held that electricity consumed for lighting the pump house was also electricity consumed for agricultural purposes.

5. In view of the above decision of this Tribunal, the demand created by the Superintendent on this account has to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

6. The Collector has purported to file what is called 'cross-objection' to the appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board. Since the relief asked for is upholding the impugned order, there is no cause for filing the purported cross-objection, which is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.