2017 (5) TMI 555 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002 - clearance of electric parts under nil rate of duty - Respondents claimed the said exemption though the said parts were not consumed within the factory of production for manufacture of non-conventional energy device specified in list 9 - Held that - there is no dispute that the items manufactured by the appellant are required for use in the products of the nature specified in sr.no. 16 of the List 9 of the said notification. Sr. No. 21 of the said notification exempts such parts only when they are consumed within the factory of production of parts for manufacture of goods specified at sr. No. 1 to 20 of List 9 - It is apparent that the goods manufactured by the appellant are not used within their factory for production of the items listed in sr.no. 16 of list 9. Thus on plain reading of the said notification it is apparent that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of such notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification 6/2002 regarding exemption for electric parts.
2. Claim of exemption under notification 6/2002 for parts not consumed within the factory of production.
3. Dispute over entitlement to benefit of notification 6/2002.
4. Comparison of relevant case laws for determining applicability of exemption.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute over the interpretation of notification 6/2002 concerning the clearance of electric parts under nil rate of duty. The respondents claimed exemption under Sr. No. 21 of List 9 of the notification, which required parts to be consumed within the factory of production for specific goods. The lower authorities allowed the benefit, leading to a cross objection by the respondents.

2. The appellant argued that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly relied on previous court judgments, while the respondent contended that they had obtained certification for their projects requiring the specified machines. The intention was to explore non-conventional energy generation, and various court decisions were cited to support their claim for exemption.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the notification and found that the appellants' products did not meet the criteria for exemption under Sr. No. 21 of List 9, as the parts were not used within their factory for production of the specified goods. The decision in the case of Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. was referenced, which had similar facts under a different notification, supporting the denial of exemption in the present case.

4. Various court decisions were compared to determine the applicability of the exemption. The decision in CCE vs. Hyndai Unitech Electrical Transmission Ltd. was found not applicable to the case at hand, as the exemption criteria differed. Similarly, reliance on other court judgments did not support the appellant's claim for exemption under notification 6/2002. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the notification, allowing the appeal of the revenue and disposing of the cross objections.