9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2006. Sl. No.21 of List 5 allows exemption to parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20 of the said List. Thus, it is very clear that the parts which are manufactured within the factory can be allowed when consumed in the manufacture of items mentioned at Sl. No.1 to 20. Also, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sova Solar Limited [ 2020 (7) TMI 485 - CESTAT KOLKATA] allowing the exemption for the parts manufactured and used within the factory of production, denied exemption to the parts procured from outside and used in the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20. This Tribunal in a similar set of facts and circumstances in Raydean Industries case [ 2022 (4) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , the claim of the appellant that Module Mounting Structures whether could be considered as part of Solar Power Generating System . Sl. No.332 of the Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 allowed Non-conventional Energy Device specified in List 8. The appellant claimed the parts as Solar Power Generating System where a specific mention about the parts consumed within the factory and production of such part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption from BCD on Solar Photovoltaic Glass under of N/N. 25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 to be examined. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for computation of liability - Appeal disposed off by way of remand. - HON'BLE DR. D. M. MISRA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Ravi Raghavan , Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Vishwanatha , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER PER : D. M. MISRA These two appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-Original. Since involve common issues, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and they are engaged in the manufacture and export of Solar Modules (Non-Conventional Energy Devices) falling under Chapter Subheading 8541 4011 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the scrutiny of their records, it was noticed that they were importing items like Photovoltaic Glass, Solar Cells, Aluminium Profiles, Solder Flux and Packing materials without payment of duty under No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used within the factory of production in the manufacture of final products. In the present case, the appellant had procured inputs locally as well as by import and claimed exemption under Sl. No.84 read with Sl. No.21 to List 5 of the alternate Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 for the period up to 16.03.2012 and Sl. No.332 read with Sl. No.21 to List 8 of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 for the period after 17.03.2012 onwards. He has submitted that the entries in both the Notifications are more or less similar. He has submitted that these Notifications exempt non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in List 5 / List 8 falling under any Chapter at Sl. No.84/332 of the respective Notifications . It exempts parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No. 1 to 20 of List 5 / List 8 . He submits that a condition in any Notification like any other provisions of the Statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and objective it seeks to achieve. An exemption Notification should be read literally and the assessee claiming benefit of any exemption Notification must show that they satisfy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had to be imported. 3.1 Further, he has submitted that the demand of Special Additional Duty (SAD) was confirmed on the ground that Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) exemption are not admissible to the appellant, hence the exemption from SAD is also unavailable. He submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim of exemption from payment of BCD under Notification No.25/1999-Cus. and No.24/2005-Cus. and in respect of exemption of CVD under the said exemption Notification cannot be denied in view of the submissions advanced by them. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of said SAD under Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 and No.21/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. 3.2 Further, on confirmation of demand of BCD relating to Solar Photovoltaic glass and Edge Tape , the learned advocate submits that this confirmation in the impugned order on the ground that they have not claimed the exemption in respect of the said goods in the alternate Notifications. The appellant did not claim exemption from BCD on Solar Photovoltaic Glass up to 30.04.2011 as there was no demand of BCD up to 30.04.2011. For the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-CE dated 17.03.2012. He has submitted that CVD is levied on the imported goods to counter balance the excise duty levied on domestic manufacturers of like goods, thus, the said levy in principle is goods specific and not assessee/importer/sector specific. Exemptions are exceptions and has to be strictly interpreted in view of principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company: 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC). Thus, interpreting the said Notifications in the light of the ratio laid down by the apex court, the Notifications are applicable only to the parts manufactured by the appellants which are used/consumed within their factory of production for manufacture of Solar Photovoltaic Modules/Panels. The CVD exemption benefit cannot be extended to like goods imported / procured from outside even if the same are used in the manufacture of said solar products. He has submitted that similar issues have been dealt by the Tribunal in a number of cases wherein it has been held that assessee are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 on the parts. In support, he has referred to the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Notifications would be applicable only in respect of parts manufactured and used within the factory of production in the manufacture of final products Solar Module (Non-conventional Energy Device). 8. Let s examine the relevant entries of the said Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, which are reproduced below: Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Sl. No. Chapter or heading or subheading or tariff item of the First Schedule Description of excisable goods Rate Condition No. 84 Any Chapter Non-conventional energy devices/ systems specified in List 5 Nil - LIST 5 (See S. No. 85 of the Table) (1) Flat plate solar Collector (2) Black continuously plated solar selective coating sheets (in cut length or in coil) and fins and tubes (3) Concentrating and pipe type solar collector (4) Solar cooker (5) Solar water heater and system (6) Solar air heating system (7) Solar low pressure steam system (8) Solar stills and desalination system (9) Solar pump based on solar thermal and solar photovoltaic conversion (10) Solar power generating system (11) Solar photovoltaic module and panel for water pumping and other applications ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.03.2006. Sl. No.21 of List 5 allows exemption to parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20 of the said List. Thus, it is very clear that the parts which are manufactured within the factory can be allowed when consumed in the manufacture of items mentioned at Sl. No.1 to 20. Also, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sova Solar Limited (supra) allowing the exemption for the parts manufactured and used within the factory of production, denied exemption to the parts procured from outside and used in the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20. The Tribunal observed as: 30. As far as the exemption notification 06/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 is concerned, what is claimed is an exemption available for parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for manufacture of goods specified at Sl.No.1-20 above (Sl.No.21, List-5 read with Sl.No.84 of the table). Clearly, there is no dispute with regard to the parts manufactured by the appellant and consumed within their factory. What is in dispute is that the parts which they have procured either by importing or from other indigenous suppliers, those are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2015 (324) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) = 2015-TIOL-236-SC-CX. 22. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant between 'devices' and 'systems' is not of relevance to the present case because both non-conventional energy devices or systems specified in List 8 are covered by the description of excisable goods. 11. The expression mentioned under Sl. No.21 of List 8 (Notification No.12/2012) is unambiguous and the intention of the legislature is clear; it refers to parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of the goods specified at Sl. No. 1 to 20 above. This is evident if a comparison is made with Sl. No.41 of List 5 of the same Notification, which reads as: parts or components of the machineries specified at item numbers (1) to (40) above. Therefore, if the intention of the legislature to extend exemption to all parts consumed in the manufacture of list of goods mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 20 of List 8, then the wording of the expression should have been similar to that of List 5 of the same Notification. Therefore, it is clear that the exemption was intended to be all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute where its application may be called for. Nonetheless, the function of the Courts is only to expound and not to legislate. Legislation in a modern State is actuated with some policy to curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. The legislation is primarily directed to the problems before the Legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future. But, from the very nature of things, it is impossible to anticipate fully the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in hand may be called for, and, words chosen to communicate such indefinite referents are bound to be in many cases lacking in clarity and precision and thus giving rise to controversial questions of construction. The process of construction combines both literal and purposive approaches. In other words the legislative intention, i.e., the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t view of this Tribunal and also the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dilip Kumar and Co. (supra), the claim of the appellant that benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to the parts procured and used in the non-conventional devices or systems specified in List 5/List 8 of the respective Notifications, as the case may be, cannot be allowed and the Commissioner has rightly denied the benefit of the said exemption Notifications. 14. Since the appellants are not entitled to avail benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, that is additional duty of Customs under Section 3 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975 (CVD) being leviable, therefore, the additional duty leviable under subsection 5 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (SAD) cannot be extended to the appellant. 15. On the issue of BCD on Solar Photovoltaic glass and Edge Tape, demand has been confirmed by the Commissioner. The appellants have not pressed confirmation of BCD and CVD in respect of Edge Tape; hence, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand. Also, in their submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
