9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order, but it is stated that the Tribunal has also passed a further order on an application styled as miscellaneous application for rectification of mistakes. That also has been dismissed by the impugned order on 1st May, 2015. Against that order, an Appeal would not lie is the submission. 3) For the present Petition and its disposal, we do not wish to decide any larger question or controversy. We proceed on the footing that relegating the Petitioner to any other remedy, even if existing, would not be efficacious and expedient, bearing in mind the request of the Petitioner. 4) Very few facts are necessary to be noted for appreciating the submissions of Mr. Shah appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner was originally constituted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has prejudiced the Petitioner enormously. The impugned orders therefore be set aside. 8) On the other hand, Mr. Mishra appearing for the Revenue supported the orders of the Tribunal. He urged that the Tribunal had formulated the question for reference to the larger Bench. In the case of the present Petitioner, the issue of any specially designed device which runs on windmills and in relation thereto, is not raised. The Tribunal has held that the Towers, Anchor Ring, Load Spreading Plates (LSP) do not fall under the phrase 'wind operated electricity generator' (WOEG). In the circumstances and for reasons assigned by the Tribunal from para 11 onwards, Mr. Mishra submits that the Tribunal's order does not require interference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nouncement regarding exemption to foundation parts, namely, Anchor Rings and LSP has been brought to the Tribunal's notice. It is thereafter that the Tribunal attempted to distinguish the case of the present Petitioner. It concluded that a foundation cannot be said to be covered by the Notification. Prima facie , the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that it has to first conclude that all the products, namely, LSP and Anchor Rings, Tower Doors are foundational parts or not. We do not find a proper reference being made to all individual manufacturers, their products and thereafter what they claim as a part of WOEG. In para 12, the intention of the Government in issuing the Notification has been discussed and reference is made to an interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest must be upheld and penalties be set aside. 19. In the case of M/s. Rakhoh Enterprises the duty demand along with interest is upheld. However, penalty is set aside. 20. In the case of Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd. though we could have decide this case finally on the basis of our findings 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se which demonstrated and proved it to be a distinct or a different matter. No light has been thrown by the Tribunal or by the Revenue before us nor any distinguishing features, save and except noted above by us, are appearing from the record. The Tribunal, rather than deciding the issue and construing and interpreting the Exemption Notification, has thought it fit to refer the same to a larger Bench. For, it thought that it may be arising in future cases. If the question or issue is of general public importance, requiring an authoritative pronouncement, then, we have not found any reason, much less cogent and satisfactory for leaving out the Petitioner from the Reference. The Petitioner's case also requires interpretation of the same N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
