9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufactured by them feeds biomass/bagasse to the boiler which generates steam. The steam from the boiler is conveyed to the steam generator which generates electricity. It is quite clear that the ash handling system only feeds the boiler with the biomass. By no stretch of imagination can this system be called waste conversion device that produces energy. What produces energy is the steam turbine generator or atmost, the boiler and the steam generator taken together. The word which is used at Sr. No. 16 of List-9 is "Device". The word used is not "Plant" in which case the ash handling system could be considered as part of the plant. - Exemption denied. Whether the demand of duty is justified in view of the fact that Annexure 'I' granting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) order, the Annexure-I is proposed to be cancelled. Annexure-I which clearly granted exemption to the appellants has not been cancelled. Therefore, the demand of duty against the appellants and imposition of penalty is not legal - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/2515/2006-Mum - Final Order No. A/595/2014-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 6-8-2014 - Ashok Jindal and P S Pruthi, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M P Kulkarni, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Comm. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P S Pruthi: The appellants are in appeal against the order-in-appeal No. PI/59-60/06 dt. 17/2/2006, which upheld the order-in-original whereby duty demand of ₹ 3126756 was confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (bagasse based cogeneration plant) only when consumed within the factory of their production. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. Consultant Shri M.P. Kulkarni argued that the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities of M/s. BCML issued the Annexure I to their jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Division-V, Akurdi, Pune for removal of goods from the premises of the appellant without payment of duty. It was also contended that under Serial No. 16 of List-9 annexed to Sr. No. 237 of Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002, following non-conventional energy devices/system are exempted. (16) Agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion device producing energy Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BCML to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the appellants factory. 7. As regards issue (i), it is noted that Notification No. 6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 grants exemption at Sr. No. 237 to non-conventional energy device/system specified in List-9 attached to the Notification and List-9, at Sr. No. 16, specifies the following goods. (16) Agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion device producing energy Further, Sr. No. 21 of List-9 grants exemption to parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts. The appellant has taken the plea that the fuel ash handling system manufactured by them feeds biomass/bagasse to the boiler which generates steam. The steam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the specified purpose of Non-Conventional renewable source Bagasse/Biomass based Cogeneration Plant. In the Annexure the appellant undertakes to follow the Central Excise (removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule 2001. The jurisdictional Central Excise Office has certified that the appellants have executed bond for ₹ 45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs only). The appellants have dispatched their goods namely fuel and ash handling system under a series of invoices over a period of time and have stated that the A.R. 3A documents supporting the invoices were received back duly acknowledged and with duly completed re-warehousing certificates countersigned by the Central Excise authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout challenging the validity of Annexure or without cancellation of the Annexure. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras: In our opinion, there is no nexus between Section 11A and Section 35E. Section 11A does not indicate that the legislature intended to override Section 35E. Both sections have to be read harmoniously. In the present case, Annexure-I certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioners from time to time on executing B-8 security bond and on furnishing a bank guarantee. The department has to follow the procedure under Section 35E for setting aside the Annexure-I certificate. Unless, the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled or rejected by the competent authority, by following the procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
