2014 (3) TMI 824 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption on HAR Cement, Refractories, Mortars & Concentrate, Prepared Refractory Bricks and Refractory Bricks under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 - Revenue contends that items cannot be considered as parts of conversion device producing energy - Held that - the claim that the impugned items should be treated as parts for manufacture of industrial device producing energy appears not convincing. As rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refractories material and not any machine and machinery. They are not manufacturing any non-conventional energy device or system or waste conversion device energy as understood in common parlance. Therefore, the appellant has failed to prove that the impugned items can be covered as parts of any machinery producing non-conventional energy device. Therefore, the exemption has been rightly stands rejected as unsubstantiated - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for exemption on certain items under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. - Whether items can be considered parts of a conversion device producing energy.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed exemption on specific items under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., asserting they were parts of a conversion device producing energy. However, the lower authorities rejected this claim, stating that the items did not qualify as parts of the alleged energy-producing device.

The appellant argued that a kiln/furnace is an industrial conversion device for energy production, emphasizing that without the kiln's operation, no energy could be generated for manufacturing the final product. The appellant contended that the disputed items should be deemed as parts consumed within the production facility for manufacturing the energy-producing industrial device.

The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and rationale. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's assertion regarding the kiln/furnace as an energy-producing device seemed implausible. The Tribunal also found the appellant's claim that the items were parts for manufacturing an energy-producing device unconvincing.

The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants were involved in manufacturing refractory material, not machinery or non-conventional energy devices. As the appellant failed to establish that the items were parts of a machinery producing non-conventional energy, the exemption claim was rightfully rejected as unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, finding no valid reason to intervene in the lower authority's order.