2009 (10) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Windmills- Exemption- the lower appellate authority has held that towers for windmills manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under CET Sub-Heading 7308.20 rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification under CET Sub Heading 8412.00 and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 205/88 dt. 25-5-88 for the reason that during the period in dispute viz. Sept. 94 to Jan 95 parts of windmills were not covered under the notification and they can enjoy the benefit of exemption only w.e.f. 16-3-95. Held that- the goods are specifically covered under CET Sub-Heading 7308.20 they have been rightly held to fall for classification under the above heading. As regards the benefit of Notification No. 205/88 there is no dispute that such benefit is not available as during the relevant period only complete windmills were covered under Sl. No. 12 of Notification and Sl. No. 12 was expanded to include parts of windmills only from 16-3-95. - In the Light of the above discussion we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Summary

Issues: Classification of towers for windmills under CET Sub-Heading 7308.20 vs. 8412.00, eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 205/88.

Classification Issue: The Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Chennai, addressed the classification of towers for windmills manufactured by the appellants. The lower appellate authority classified the towers under CET Sub-Heading 7308.20, which covers structures of iron and steel, including towers, attracting a duty of 15%. The tribunal noted that Chapter Heading 73.08 specifically covers towers and lattice masts, while the heading claimed by the assessees (8412.00) is a residuary heading. It was emphasized that there is no exclusion of any type of tower from coverage under Chapter Heading 73.08. Therefore, the tribunal held that the towers fell under CET Sub-Heading 7308.20 and were rightly classified as such.

Exemption Issue: Regarding the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 205/88, the tribunal clarified that during the relevant period (Sept.'94 to Jan'95), only complete windmills were covered under the notification. The notification was expanded to include parts of windmills from 16-3-95 onwards. As the towers in question were parts of windmills and not covered under the notification during the disputed period, the tribunal held that the appellants were not eligible for the exemption. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on the grounds of classification and exemption eligibility.

This detailed analysis of the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Chennai, provides a comprehensive overview of the classification and exemption issues involved in the case concerning towers for windmills.