2016 (6) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for benefit of exemption - Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 - goods supplied on-site to be used in the fabrication of the boilers to the end-users - equipment produced by appellant are in the nature of conversion devices which are going to be ultimately used in conversion of waste into non-conversion energy - Held that - the issue is no longer res integra, Therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements made by Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/s. Shree Venkateswara Engg Corporation v. CCE Coimbatore 2016 (2) TMI 65 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE for goods supplied for Bio-mass energy Boiler manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur, regarding the eligibility of M/s Metalfab Hightech (P) Ltd. for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE. The appellant claims exemption for various technological equipment and parts supplied for Bio-mass energy Boilers. The issue revolves around the interpretation of List 9 of the notification, specifically Sl. Nos. 16 and 21, which cover conversion devices producing energy and parts consumed in the production of such devices, respectively. The appellant argues that the equipment supplied qualifies as conversion devices for waste into non-conventional energy, citing precedents like CCE v. Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shree Venkateswara Engg Corporation v. CCE Coimbatore.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods supplied were parts of Bio-mass Energy Boilers and not complete energy systems/devices, thus not eligible for exemption. However, the Commissioner's view was challenged by the appellant, asserting that chimneys were devices and should qualify for exemption. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was previously decided in CCE v. Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., where chimneys supplied for biomass burning boilers were considered devices for non-conventional energy systems. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's view that chimneys for biomass-fired boilers could be treated as non-conventional energy devices.

In another judgment involving Shree Venkateswara Engg Corporation, the Tribunal upheld the exemption for a complete device supplied in knocked down condition. The Tribunal emphasized the broad description in List 9, stating that individual items contributing to the ultimate product, like boilers/generators, could be covered under the exemption. The Tribunal highlighted that a wide description in the notification should not be narrowly interpreted to deny exemption based on individual descriptions. The judgment referenced the principle that if a taxpayer falls within the plain terms of an exemption, the benefit cannot be denied based on intentions not clearly stated in the notification.

Considering the precedents and the broad interpretation of List 9, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting exemption notifications based on the clear language used and the overall purpose of the exemption provisions.