Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AAR Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2011 (3) TMI 68 - AAR - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of specially designed transformers for exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise.
2. Interpretation of the term "components and parts" in the context of wind-operated electricity generators.
3. Consideration of fiscal policy and purpose of exemption in interpreting the notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Specially Designed Transformers for Exemption from Central Excise Duty:
The applicant, a joint venture company, sought a ruling on whether their specially designed transformers for wind-operated electricity generators (WOEG) E-48/E-53 (800 KW) are eligible for exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006. The notification exempts goods specified in the Table read with relevant List appended thereto from the levy of Central Excise duty. The applicant claimed that their transformers are essential parts of WOEG, designed exclusively for such generators, performing dual functions of stepping down and stepping up the voltage necessary for the operation of the generators.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Components and Parts":
The applicant argued that these transformers are integral to the WOEG and should be considered as parts thereof, citing the Tribunal's decision in Hyundai Unitech Electrical Transmission Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, where parts of tower and lattice masts were held to be parts of WOEG. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman, contested this claim, arguing that transformers do not fall under the category of "wind-operated electricity generators, its components and parts thereof" as specified in Serial No. 13 of List 5 appended to the Notification. The Department emphasized that the transformer has a separate and independent function of connecting the WOEG to the power grid and cannot be considered a part or component of the generator.

3. Consideration of Fiscal Policy and Purpose of Exemption:
The applicant cited the fiscal policy promoting non-conventional energy infrastructure and the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat vs Reliance Petroleum Limited to argue for a broader interpretation of the exemption notification. The applicant contended that the purpose of the exemption should be considered in its entirety, notwithstanding the need for strict construction. However, the Authority noted that the entry at Serial No. 84 of the Table in the Notification covers only specific devices and systems listed in List 5, and the transformer does not fit within these specified entries.

Judgment:
The Authority examined the items specified in List 5, which includes individual devices and complete systems but not transformers. The Authority concluded that the specially designed transformer, while essential for the functioning of the WOEG, is not a part of the generator itself but rather a part of the system working in conjunction with the generator. The transformer is an item of electrical machinery that is a part of the grid management system of a wind energy converter, not a part of the generator per se. The Authority also noted that specific mention of "rotor and wind turbine controller" in the entry confirms that the generator entry does not intend to include equipment deployed with the generator for stable power production.

Ruling:
The applicant is not eligible for the exemption in respect of the specially designed transformers proposed to be manufactured as a part of wind-operated electricity generators under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006. The ruling was given and pronounced on the 18th of March, 2011.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates