9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent treatment to the case of the Petitioner. The Tribunal was aware of the controversy, the issue before it and stated to be common to all the Appellants. If there was justification for rendering a separate finding in the case of the Petitioner's Appeal, then, in the first instance it is not clear as to why it was clubbed along with other Appeals. If all three Appeals involve similar question and issue, then, it is nor clarified as to what distinguishes only the present Petitioner's case from the other two Appeals. If the issue was of the Exemption Notification, its construction and interpretation, the intention of the Government in granting the exemption, then, it is common to all the Appellants. Order of tribunal set aside - the special Bench of the Tribunal shall call for the records of the Petitioner's Appeal and allow the Petitioner to participate in the proceedings/Reference. - Decided in favour of Assessee. - Writ Petition No. 7889 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2015 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalia, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Prakash Shah with Mr Prasad Paranjape and Mr Arun Jain For the Respondent : Mr Y R Mishra with Mr Neelesh V Kalantri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 5,36,83,121/- together with interest and penalty. The Petitioner replied to this show cause notice, was granted a personal hearing and an orderinoriginal was passed on 24th June, 2013 confirming the demand of duty, interest and commensurate penalty. Annexure 'G' is the copy of the order. 6) An Appeal was preferred against this order and that was heard by the Tribunal and the Petitioner noted that there were two more Appeals of two other corporate entities, which were listed for hearing together with the Appeal of the Petitioner. The Tribunal was of the view that all the three Appeals involve similar issue. The Appeals were therefore decided by a common order. The Tribunal passed a final order dated 25th September, 2014 partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. The duty demand was confirmed together with interest, but the penalties were set aside. However, in respect of the other two entities whose Appeals were taken up together with the Petitioner by the Tribunal, the Tribunal referred a question or issue raised therein for opinion by a larger Bench. 7) The Petitioner, on noticing some mistake in the initial order, particularly while invoking exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that the orders passed by the Court or Tribunal suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or that its findings and conclusions are perverse. However, in this case, we find that the three Appeals were taken together. The Tribunal, in para 9 of the initial order dated 25th September, 2014 observed that the short point to be decided is whether the Load Spreading Plates (LSP) manufactured by the three Appellants and Towers can be considered to be covered under Wind Operated Electricity Generator, its components and parts , which are exemption under Notification No. 6 of 2006. After setting out the background in which the Notification was issued and the nature of the product manufactured, its components and parts in para 10, in para 11, the Tribunal held that various judicial pronouncements have, according to the Counsel, allowed exemption to Towers and their parts. However, no judicial pronouncement regarding exemption to foundation parts, namely, Anchor Rings and LSP has been brought to the Tribunal's notice. It is thereafter that the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs recorded above, as a matter of judicial discipline the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench because our view is contrary to the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in the matter of the same assessee for a different period. The issue to be considered by Larger Bench is framed as follows: Whether a manufacturer is entitled to claim the benefit and exemption from Central Excise duty on 'wind mill doors' under Notification No. 6/2006 dt. 1.3.2006 which grants exemption to wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts thereof including rotor wind turbine controller 10) Upon perusal of these paragraphs, we are unable to agree with Mr. Mishra that there was justification for giving different treatment to the case of the Petitioner. The Tribunal was aware of the controversy, the issue before it and stated to be common to all the Appellants. If there was justification for rendering a separate finding in the case of the Petitioner's Appeal, then, in the first instance it is not clear as to why it was clubbed along with other Appeals. If all three Appeals involve similar question and issue, then, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
