2017 (2) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt, where it was held that the flange being part of tower which is Essential Component of Wind Operated Electrical Generator, an unconventional energy service device, would be eligible under Sr. No. 5 if not under 20 as part of Sr. No. 1 to 19. Coverage is also to be available under Sr. No. 13 of list 5. The appellant is entitle for the exemption under N/N. 6/2000-CE in respect of their product namely M.S. Forged Flanges as parts/ spares of the wind mill tower - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The issue inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is to be held that part i.e. flange of this part i.e. tower will be part of the whole i.e. Wind Generated Mill producing electricity from unconventional services. Every devices/ systems part in this case having been specifically designed for that purpose in mind. That part of part is part of whole is well settled, relying upon [CCE v. Mahendra Engineering Works - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 134 followed in Bensel Industrial Corporation - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 119]. We find the 'flanges' to be apart of WOEG. 2.2 The restriction being given to the exemption as part of the tower by reading Sr. No. 20 of lists, only on the grounds that flanges were not eligible since they were not consumed in the factory of production for the manufacture of tower h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dtd. 10-5-95 to scrutinize the declaration, therefore the finding on suppression as arrived by the Ld. Adjudicator is this order, para 10, of deliberate omission of Sr. No. to involve the Proviso clause & lift the bar of limitation cannot be upheld. As the order does not indicate any other objection of the verification if any, done by the officers. Since the appellants belief of the product being covered on different Sr. No. was well founded & there was no stipulation of reporting the same. Surely if claim is entitled under alternate Sr. No. the same have to be granted. Suppression of fact cannot be arrived. Same has to be of a fact which would disentitle the claim of exemption, if revealed. No such fact is brought out in the order or plead .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X