2015 (4) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the parts of the boilers of Biomass Energy Producing Systems being manufactured by the respondent and which are not consumed within their factory but are used in the factory of ISGEC, Yamunanagar, Haryana, would be eligible for exemption under notification no.6/2002-CE (Sl.No.237) - Held that - Respondent manufacture certain components of boilers of Biomass Energy Producing System. The boilers for Biomass Energy Producing System are manufactured by ISGEC, Yamunanagar, Haryana and the same can be treated as Biomass Energy Producing Devices. - parts of the Non-conventional Energy Devices/Systems would be covered for full exemption duty under this exemption only when such parts are used within the factory in which the same have been manufactured for manufacture of non-conventional energy producing systems. In other words, this exemption notification is applicable only to those parts manufactured in a factory which are captively used for manufacture of non-conventional energy devices/systems. We find that the identical issue has been considered by the Apex Court in its judgement in the case of Binny Ltd. reported in 2006 (3) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . In that case, M/s. Binny Ltd. were manufacturing roof structures to be used for roofing of the digester of the biogas plant. But M/s. Binny Ltd. were not manufacturing the biogas plant or its digester but were supplying the roof structure to the manufacturers of the digesters. The facts of the case of M/s. Binny Ltd. are identical to the facts of this case - impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the order passed by the Joint Commissioner is restored - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification no.6/2002-CE regarding duty exemption for non-conventional energy devices/systems and parts consumed within the factory for their manufacture.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of duty exemption under notification no.6/2002-CE for certain fabricated items supplied to a manufacturer of Biomass Energy Producing Systems. The respondent claimed full duty exemption under this notification, but the Department denied it, leading to an appeal by the respondent against the Joint Commissioner's order.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the goods produced by the respondent qualify as devices under the exemption notification. This decision was challenged by the Revenue, leading to the current appeal and a cross objection by the respondent.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the goods supplied by the respondent were parts of Biomass Energy Producing Systems but were not consumed within the factory of production, making them ineligible for exemption. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case involving a similar exemption notification, where parts not consumed within the factory were deemed ineligible for exemption.

4. The Advocate for the Respondent defended the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing that the goods produced by the respondent qualify as devices and should be eligible for exemption under the notification.

5. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and examined the records, focusing on whether the parts supplied by the respondent for Biomass Energy Producing Systems were eligible for exemption under the notification.

6. The Tribunal observed that the exemption notification no.6/2002-CE prescribed nil rate of duty for non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in List 9, covering various items including parts consumed within the factory for the manufacture of specific goods. The scope of the exemption was confined to what was mentioned in List 9, and parts of non-conventional energy systems were only covered if used within the factory of manufacture.

7. Citing a previous Apex Court judgment involving a similar scenario, where parts not consumed within the factory were deemed ineligible for exemption, the Tribunal concluded that the parts of non-conventional energy devices/systems would only be eligible for full exemption if used within the factory where they were manufactured.

8. Based on the above analysis and the binding precedent set by the Apex Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restored the Joint Commissioner's order, and allowed the Revenue's appeal while disposing of the cross objection filed by the Respondent.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal interpretations and precedents considered by the Tribunal in deciding the eligibility of duty exemption for the parts supplied by the respondent for Biomass Energy Producing Systems under the relevant exemption notification.