2016 (2) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise

Benefits of the notification 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002 (Sl No. 237 of the notification) denied - the goods cleared by the appellants were only in parts of non conventional energy devices/systems and not the complete device itself - Held that - We notice from the findings of the lower authorities that the goods cleared by the appellants have reached finality in the sense that they have become identifiable goods though according to the lower authorities they are only parts. We find that this conclusion has not been arrived at based upon the description of the items in the said notification with reference to the exemption claim as we have already mentioned that the description would cover all devices without reference to the nature of the device or description of the devices. If the items cleared have attained individual identity and finality it cannot be said it is not a device. Therefore, taking into consideration the specific description under which the exemption is allowed, we have no hesitation in allowing the exemption as the items in question are only devices for the purpose of conversion of the waste material into non conventional energy for which purpose the exemption is granted. See Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV Versus Rachitech Engineers Pvt Ltd 2015 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification 6/2002 regarding exemption for non-conventional energy devices/systems.
2. Whether goods supplied by the appellant qualify for exemption under the notification.
3. Consideration of technical details and methodology in clearance of goods.
4. Comparison of specific device descriptions in the notification.
5. Application of legal principles in interpreting the notification for exemption.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the interpretation of notification 6/2002 concerning the denial of benefits to the appellant for not supplying complete non-conventional energy devices/systems as per the notification's description. The appellant argued that the goods supplied were part of the device and eligible for exemption under the notification.

2. The appellant contended that the goods supplied were integral to non-conventional energy devices/systems, emphasizing that they were fit for energy generation. The tribunal considered the broad description in the notification, concluding that even goods supplied in Knocked Down Condition could be covered under the wide-ranging description in the notification. The tribunal relied on legal principles to grant exemption based on the purpose of waste conversion into energy.

3. The technical details and methodology followed by the appellant in clearing the goods were crucial in determining their eligibility for exemption. The tribunal noted that individual items supplied in Knocked Down Condition contributed to the final product, a boiler/generator, which could not be supplied in one lot. The tribunal emphasized that the description in the notification was comprehensive and did not exclude goods cleared in parts.

4. By comparing specific device descriptions in the notification, particularly Sl No. 16 of list 9, the tribunal highlighted the wide and inclusive nature of the description, covering various devices for waste conversion into energy. The tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the goods supplied were only parts, emphasizing that individual items forming part of the final device were eligible for exemption.

5. Applying legal principles and precedents, the tribunal granted the appeal, citing a similar decision under the same notification. The tribunal emphasized that the goods supplied by the appellant qualified as devices for waste conversion into non-conventional energy, thus meeting the criteria for exemption. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, based on the interpretation of the notification and the purpose of the exemption.

← Previous Next →