2003 (9) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Wind mill - Whether Nacelle Body, Towers, Latics, Masts, etc., are structurals classifiable under Heading 73.08 or the same are parts of the wind mill entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-88 - HELD THAT - We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has mainly relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 1999 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI . After going through the said decision of the Tribunal we find that the ratio of the same is fully applicable to the dispute involved in the present appeal. We have also seen the photographs produced on record as contained from pages 30 to 32 of the paper book and find that the disputed items in question are nothing but parts of the Wind Mill. The Wind Mill cannot be erected and positioned without the use of the said parts. There is no dispute in the Revenue's appeal to the effect that the Nacelle Body and the supporting structurals have been manufactured according to the specific design of the Wind Mill without which the Wind Mill does not come into existence. As such we do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of Nacelle Body, Towers, Lattices, Masts, etc., as structurals under Heading 73.08 or as parts of wind mill for exemption u/s Notification No. 205/88-C.E.

Summary:
The Revenue appealed the decision regarding the classification of Nacelle Body, Towers, Lattices, Masts, etc., contending that these items are not parts of a wind mill and should not be exempted u/s Notification No. 205/88-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit of exemption based on the specific design and purpose of these items for wind mills, as per the Tribunal's previous rulings.

The Revenue argued that Towers & Lattices are general use structures, not specific to wind mills, and therefore should not qualify for exemption under the notification.

The respondents countered by emphasizing the specialized design and purpose of the Nacelle Body and supporting structurals, tailored for wind mills and essential for their functioning. They provided technical details and photographs to support their claim.

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the disputed items are integral parts of a wind mill and necessary for its operation. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it based on the specific design and function of the items in question.

This judgment reaffirms the importance of considering the specific design and purpose of goods in determining their classification and eligibility for exemption under relevant notifications.