2015 (6) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture of chimneys - component of the boilers for non-conventional energy system - Exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - Held that - Sl.No.237 of the table to the Notification 6/2002-CE covers non-conventional energy devices / systems specified in list 9. Sl.No.16 of the list 9 covers agricultural, forestry, agro industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion devise producing energy . There is no dispute that the chimneys manufactured by the appellant are meant for biomass burning boilers being manufactured by M/s. ISGEC John Thompson who in turn, supply such broilers to the end-users for production of energy from waste. The Commissioner (Appeals) s view is that since what is covered by Sl.No.237 of Notification No.6/2002-CE is the non-conventional energy devices/ systems and since there is very thin distinction between part and device, as the device is thing made for a particular purpose and since chimney being an integral part of the biomass fired broiler can be treated as a device for non-conventional energy devices/systems, the exemption under this Notification would be available to the chimneys. - device is a thing made for a particular purpose and as such the chimney meant for biomass fired boiler has to be treated as non-conventional energy device. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of duty exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE for chimneys used in non-conventional energy systems.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of duty exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE for chimneys used as a component of boilers in non-conventional energy systems. The appellant, a manufacturer of chimneys, supplied them to a company manufacturing boilers for non-conventional energy systems. The Department contended that since the chimneys were only a part of the non-conventional energy device and not the device itself, they were not eligible for exemption. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellant, which was later overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the chimneys were integral attachments of the boilers and should be considered devices for non-conventional energy systems, thus qualifying for the exemption.

The main argument put forth by the Revenue was that the chimneys were not covered under the exemption as they were only a component of the non-conventional energy device, and not the device itself. The Revenue highlighted that the chimneys were being manufactured by the appellant, while the boilers were produced by another company, and therefore, the chimneys did not qualify under the specific provisions of the notification. The Revenue contended that since the chimneys were not used within the appellant's factory for manufacturing non-conventional energy devices/systems, they did not meet the criteria for exemption as per the notification.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel defended the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the chimneys were essential components of the biomass burning boilers produced by another company for energy production from waste. The counsel argued that the thin distinction between a part and a device should be considered, and since the chimneys were integral to the biomass-fired boiler, they should be treated as devices for non-conventional energy systems, making them eligible for the exemption under the notification.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the chimneys should be treated as non-conventional energy devices/systems under the notification. The Tribunal noted that the chimneys were specifically designed for biomass burning boilers, which were used for energy production from waste. The Tribunal concurred with the view that the chimneys, being integral parts of the biomass-fired boilers, could be considered devices for non-conventional energy systems. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision that the chimneys were eligible for duty exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE.