ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of two sets of appeals. Civil Appeals Nos. 7450-51 of 2000 filed by the assessee, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. a against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeals Nos. E/4768 of 1991-C and E/6108 of 1992-C whereby the Tribunal accepted the appeals filed by the respondent Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and held that the assessee would not be entitled to avail of the benefit granted under Entry 34 of Exemption Notification No. 75/84-CE dated 1-3-1984 (as b amended) issued by the Central Government. Period for which exemption is sought in these appeals falls between 1-8-1989 to 31-5-1991. 2. Civil Appeals Nos. 9919-29 of 2003 have been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for c short "the Tribunal") in Appeals Nos. EI254-57, 282-83, 320 and 2091 of 1998-C, E12752 of 2000-C, E1274 of 2000-C and E/410 of 2000-C wherein and whereby the Tribunal has granted the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 which was operative between 16-3-1995 to 31-7-1996, Notification No. 8/96 operative for the period 1-8-1996 to 1-3-1997 and Notification No. 4/97 dated 1-3-1997 which is still in operation. It may be mentioned that a Notifications Nos. 67/95, 8/96 and 4/97 in substance extend the same benefit which has been extended to the assessees under Notification No. 75/84. Period for which exemption is sought in these appeals falls between January 1996 to September 1999. 3. M/s Indian Oil Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee" is engaged in the refining of crude petroleum which leads to the manufacture of e various petroleum products. It produces reduced crude oil (RCO) or low sulphur heavy stock (LSHS) which are captively consumed by the assessee in the thermal power plant located within the refinery area for generation of electricity which electricity in turn is largely used in the refinery for producing various petroleum products. The assessee claimed exemption for RCO/LSHS which had been captively consumed based on exemption notifications issued from time to time. 4. The assessee claimed exemption for RCO/LSHS which had been captively consumed based on exemption notifications issued from time to time. 4. Show-cause notices were issued to the assessee for the period 1-8-1989 to 31-5-1991 calling upon it to show cause why the duty demand be not raised on LSHS and as to why their claim for exemption be not denied on the ground that clearance of LSHS to other associate agencies such as Gujarat Electricity Board, ONGC, State Bank of India, P&T Exchange and ~ Post Office on nil rate of duty under Notification No. 75/84 was illegal and not admissible. According to the Department, Condition 4 of the notification was not fulfilled since fuel captively consumed was for production of electrical energy not for sale but for their own consumption or for supply of their own undertaking for which there is no execution of duty on such fuel t used for generation of electricity. 5. The assessee on 24-4-1990 submitted its reply stating, inter alia, that LSHS used for generation of electricity in the thermal power station situated within the refinery is eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No.75/84 since the electricity is supplied to the various agencies on no-profit no-loss basis. 6. The Tribunal in the impugned order in Civil Appeals Nos. 7450-51 of 2000 denied the benefit by observing that the thermal power station of the assessee wherein LSHS was consumed for generation of electricity is not covered by the meaning of the word "refinery" as per the explanation. Therefore, Entry 34 of the notification under which the exemption was claimed as an alternate argument was not attracted and consequently it was not entitled to any exemption in terms of Entry 34 of Notification No. 75/84. 7. In the order impugned in Civil Appeals Nos. 9919-29 of 2003, the Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Southern Bench of CEGAT in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE! in which the benefit in terms of Entry 34 of Notification No. 74/84 was extended to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The only difference being that in that case electricity was produced in the thermal power plant located in the refinery for captive consumption with the use of naptha whereas in the present case the electricity is produced with the use of LSHS. 8. 8. Mr Mohan Parasaran, the learned Additional Solicitor General has fairly conceded that against the order passed by the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., no appeal was preferred by the Department and the said order has attained finality. Since no appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and the same has become final, the Department is not entitled to raise the same point in other cases in view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dala, CCE v. Tata Engg. & Locomotives Co. Ltd. Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. CC£4 and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. CCE wherein it has been held that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the Revenue, the Revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question. In Birla Corpn. Ltd. this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 97, para 5) "5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd.6 cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary." Rirla Corpn. Ltd. is being followed consistently. 9. Since the point involved in the present case is identical to the point involved in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. I and the Department having accepted the principle laid down in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. I the Department cannot be permitted to take a different stand in the present b appeals. 10. Apart from this, considering the appeal on merits as well, we find that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit in terms of Entry 34 of Exemption Notification No. 75/84-CE. The same reads as under: S1. No. Description of foods Rate of duty Intended use/condition 34 Low sulphur heavy Nil Intended for use as fuel in a stock refinery. Apart from this, considering the appeal on merits as well, we find that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit in terms of Entry 34 of Exemption Notification No. 75/84-CE. The same reads as under: S1. No. Description of foods Rate of duty Intended use/condition 34 Low sulphur heavy Nil Intended for use as fuel in a stock refinery. Explanation.-"Refinery" means a refinery wherein refining of crude petroleum or shale or blending of d non-duty-paid petroleum products is carried on. The Board had issued a circular which reads as under: "Eligibility to concession under Notification No. 74/63-CE, dated 18-5-1963 & 353/77-CE dated 16-12-1977. In supersession of the Board's instructions contained in F. No.3565-CX-3 dated 16-9-1967 it has been decided that since generation of electrical energy electricity as an intermediate product is incidental in the process and manufacture of petroleum products falling under TIs Nos. 6 to 11-AA the exemption contained in Notification No. 352/77-CE dated 16-12-1977 as amended by Notification No. 131/80-CE dated 23-8-1980 and 41/82-CE dated 28-2-1982 would be available to the quantity of intermediate product electricity. The exemption contained in this notification will however, not be available to that quantity of petroleum products which is used in the generation of electricity which, in turn, is not used in the process and manufacture of petroleum products." (underlinedt for emphasis) 9 11. Low sulphur heavy stock is used by the assessee as fuel in a thermal power plant located within the refinery area for generating electricity which in turn is captively consumed for production of various petroleum products. Entry 34 of Notification No. 75/84 read with the clarificatory circular clearly spells out that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption on LSHS to the extent it is used in thermal power plant located within the refinery area for generating electricity which in turn is used in the process of manufacture of petroleum products. 12. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are accepted; order under appeal is set aside and it is held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 75/84-CE in terms of Entry 34 read with clarificatory circular which covers such captive consumption of the fuel for the purpose of petroleum products manufactured in the refinery. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are accepted; order under appeal is set aside and it is held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 75/84-CE in terms of Entry 34 read with clarificatory circular which covers such captive consumption of the fuel for the purpose of petroleum products manufactured in the refinery. The exemption shall not be available in respect of RCO/LSHS used in the generation of electricity which in turn is not used in the process and manufacture of petroleum products within the refinery area. Civil Appeals Nos. 9919-29 of 2003 13. Mr Mohan Parasaran, the learned Additional Solicitor General fairly concedes that the subsequent Notifications Nos. 67/95, 8/96 and 4/97 have further enhanced the scope of the exemption and the assessee would be entitled to avail of the exemption in terms of Notification No. 67/95. 14. In view of the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, these appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.