2008 (6) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption Iron and Steel Towers Held that the towers manufactured and cleared from the respondent s factory were used by their buyers as parts of windmills. - But this is not enough. - For claiming exemption from payment of duty on the towers, these items should have been cleared as parts of windmills. - In other words, the towers should have been involved in the manufacture and clearance of windmills in SKD/CKD condition or otherwise. - The above Notification was, purportedly, to benefit those manufacturers who manufactured non-conventional energy producing devices as complete machines and cleared the same in SKD/CKD condition or otherwise. - The respondents were not entitled to claim the benefit under Sl. No.18 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 205/88 CE on the facts of this case and, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of towers under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. for excise duty exemption.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of towers manufactured and cleared under SH 8412.90 of the CETA Schedule as parts of windmills for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. The Revenue argues that the towers should be classified under SH 7308.20 as iron or steel structures, not as parts of windmills. The lower appellate authority held that the towers are essential components of windmills, thus eligible for the benefit of the Notification.

The learned SDR emphasizes that the goods cleared were towers, specifically covered under Chapter Heading 7308.20, contrary to the respondent's claim. The respondents rely on previous Tribunal decisions and a Board's Circular to support their position that the towers are essential components of windmills, aligning with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Notification in question grants exemption from excise duty for various energy devices, including windmills and related devices. It lists specific items eligible for exemption, including parts consumed within the factory for the manufacture of listed goods. The dispute revolves around whether the towers were captively consumed in the manufacture of windmills as required by the Notification.

The Tribunal finds that the towers were manufactured and cleared as standalone items, not as parts of windmills. The benefit of the Notification is intended for manufacturers who produce complete devices and clear them in specific conditions, which was not the case with the towers in question. Previous decisions cited by the respondents did not address this aspect of the Notification, leading to the dismissal of their claim for exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rules that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit under the Notification based on the facts of the case. The impugned order granting the benefit is set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue is allowed.