2008 (9) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding the applicability of exemption to goods under Notification No. 205/88-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake in Final Order
The appellants filed an application seeking rectification of an apparent mistake in Final Order No. 609/08 dated 24-6-2008 passed by the Bench in Appeal No. E/583/2001. The mistake pertained to the non-consideration of an amendment brought to Notification No. 205/88-C.E. dated 25-5-1988 by Notification No. 57/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995. The amendment included "parts of windmills" in the entry at S. No. 12. The appellants argued that this omission led to an erroneous decision against them. The Bench acknowledged the error and decided to amend the final order substantially to reflect the correct interpretation of the notification.

Issue 2: Applicability of Exemption to Goods
The Bench reviewed the entry at S. No. 12 in the Table annexed to Notification No. 205/88-C.E. both before and after the 1995 amendment. Before the amendment, the entry mentioned "windmills and any specially designed devices which run on windmills." Post-amendment, the entry included "windmills, parts of windmills and any specially designed devices which run on windmills." The Bench noted that the initial final order did not consider the inclusion of "parts of windmills" in the amended entry, leading to an incorrect decision. Upon rectification, the Bench clarified that the towers manufactured by the respondents, which were parts of windmills assembled at the buyers' sites, were entitled to the benefit of exemption under the amended notification. The decision of the lower appellate authority granting the exemption was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The rectification of the mistake in the final order was crucial for ensuring the correct interpretation and application of the exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. The amended final order clarified that the towers manufactured by the respondents qualified as parts of windmills and were eligible for the exemption. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant amendments to the law while making decisions to avoid erroneous conclusions.