9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1083 - SC - Central ExciseBenefit of exemption Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - Whether windmill doors and electrical boxes are components and/or parts of wind operated electricity generators - Held that - As far as windmill doors or tower doors are concerned, it is a safety device which is used as security for high voltage equipments fitted inside the tower, preventing unauthorised access and preventing entries of reptiles, insects, etc., inside the tower. This, according to us, would be sufficient to make it part of the electricity generator. We further find that this was so held by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur in Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2005 as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur, vide his orders dated 10.02.2003. The said orders were accepted by the Revenue as it is recorded by the CESTAT that the Revenue could not produce any evidence to show that those orders were challenged by it. Further, since the tower is held as part of the generator, door thereof has to be necessarily a part of the generator. - No case of interference is made out - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Dispute over classification under Central Excise Rules. 2. Invocation of longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 3. Whether windmill doors and electrical boxes are components or parts of wind operated electricity generators for exemption benefits. Issue 1: Dispute over classification under Central Excise Rules The judgment addresses a dispute regarding the classification under Central Excise Rules for the manufacture of Tower and Lasttice Masts of Iron and Steel and other structures and parts of Iron and Steel. The respondent had filed a classification declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules 1944. A show cause notice was issued for the period from 01.03.2000 to 30.08.2000, beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal of the Respondent, citing no suppression or misstatement by the respondent, dismissing the appeal based on limitation alone. Issue 2: Invocation of longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A The judgment discusses the invocation of the longer period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The CESTAT ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that the Department could not invoke the proviso as there was no suppression or misstatement. The judgment referenced a previous decision by a Larger Bench in a different case, emphasizing that the circumstances were not relevant to the present case. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. Issue 3: Classification of windmill doors and electrical boxes In Civil Appeal No. 5821 of 2013, the issue was whether windmill doors and electrical boxes are components or parts of wind operated electricity generators for exemption benefits under Notification No. 06/2002-CE. The Court considered the argument that windmill doors are safety devices used to secure high voltage equipment inside the tower, preventing unauthorized access. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur, had previously held that windmill doors are part of the electricity generator. The Court upheld this view, stating that since the tower is considered part of the generator, the door must also be a part of the generator, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
