9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewable Energy and hence, the contention of the appellant that they are parts of WOEG is not a legally tenable argument. Failure to examine the transformer from the angle of general principles of interpretation that they should be understood by their popular meaning/common parlance principle - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not produced any material before us which could lead us to a conclusion that transformer in terms of their popular meaning/common parlance principle, are part of WOEG. Further, when the concerned Ministry itself has not included transformer to be a part of the WOEG, the reliance on popular meaning, etc., is not a plausible argument. Applicability of order in the case of Enercon India Ltd - HELD THAT:- The matter has not been remanded back to the assessing officer but instead the appeal stands allowed by the Hon ble Apex Court. The matter in-fact was remanded by the first appellate authority, which was upheld by both the Hon ble Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court. The aforementioned order dated 8.3.2016, is passed in an appeal against the order of the Hon ble High Court. What is forthcoming is that the dispute in the said case was whether M/s. Enercon (I) Ltd. [ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transformers for WOEG is installed on the ground adjoining WOEG is a device to link the electricity generated by the WOEG to the distribution grid and make it usable for distribution/consumption; The appellant feels that the transformers are specially/specifically designed to be used along with WOEGs is therefore to be treated as part of WOEG. 4. In view of the foregoing facts, the appellant had sought Advance Ruling on the following questions, viz: The specially designed Transformers for Wind Operated Electricity Generators which are meant to perform dual function of Step Down and Step Up manufactured by Suzlon and supplied to the customers of Suzlon as part of Wind Operated Electricity Generator be treated as part of Wind Operated Electricity Generator and falls under Sr. No. 234 in Schedule-I to Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, Page 14 of 25 2017 read with Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June, 2017 and liable to Central GST at the rate of 2.5% along with Gujarat State GST at the rate of 2.5% up to 30 th September 2021 and 6% each towards CGST and SGST with effect from 1st October, 2021 by virtue of omission of the said entry and ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at transformers are vital parts of a windmill; the impugned order failed to look at the transformer from the angle of general principles of interpretation; that they should also be understood by their popular meaning/common parlance principle; that WOEG and Wind Turbine system are used interchangeably; that there is no difference between the two; the appellant never expected any ruling considering the same as a composite supply; that had the transformer been placed in the Nacelle or the tower, the benefit of the notification would have been allowed; that though the transformer placed adjacent to the WOEG, is doing the same function performed by Turbine step up transformer [which is usually installed in the Nacelle] but since it is placed adjoining to WOEG, it has not been considered as a part of the WOEG; that the transformer supplied are an inevitable component of the entire WOEG; that WOEG is of no use if the electricity generated cannot be put to use by the end customer. 8. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 15.10.2024, wherein Shri Dhruvank Parikh, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of appeal. 9. We have carefully gone through and conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.03.2012 covers part/components of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG). References have been received in relation to tower, tower doors, blades and electrical boxes. 2. The matter has been examined. In the aforesaid notification serial no. 332 read with List 8 exempts Wind operated electricity generator, its component and parts thereof including rotor and wind turbine controller from Central Excise duty. In this regard, attention is invited to the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court dated 13th August, 2015 in case of M/s Gemini Instratech Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 2006 , wherein Hon ble Apex Court (while deciding the eligibility of wind mill doors and electrical boxes of WOEG for exemption) has held that- It is not in dispute that as far as windmill doors or tower doors are concerned, it is a safety device which is used as security for high voltage equipments fitted inside the tower, preventing unauthorized access and preventing entries of reptiles, insects, etc, inside the tower. This, according to us, would be sufficient to make it part of electricity generator. We further find that this was so held by the Commissioner of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued clarifying that exemption is available to these parts. For details, the above noted circular may be referred. Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax(Rate), the 28.06.2017 Schedule I-2.5% S.No. Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/ Tariff item Description of Goods (1) (2) (3) 234. 84 or 85 Following renewable energy devices parts for their manufacture- (a) Bio-gas plant (b) Solar power based devices (c) Solar power generating system (d) Wind mills. Wind Operated Electricity Generator (WOEG) (e) Waste to energy plants devices (f) Solar lantern solar lamp (g) Ocean waves tidal waves energy devices plants Notification No. 8/2021-Central Tax(Rate), the 30.09.2021 In the said notification, - (a) in Schedule I-2.5%, - (b) in Schedule II 6%, - (i) against S. No. 80A, in column (3), for the entry, the following entry shall be substituted, namely: - Bio-diesel (other than bio-diesel supplied to Oil Marketing Companies for blending with High Speed Diesel) ; (ii) S. No. 122 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted; (iii) S. Nos. 127 to 132 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted; (iv) after S. No. 201 and the entries relating thereto, the following S. No. and entries shall be ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on popular meaning, etc., is not a plausible argument. 14. The next averment of the appellant is that the GAAR erred in holding that the order in the case of Enercon India Ltd, ibid, is not applicable; that the matter has not been remanded back to the assessing officer but instead the appeal stands allowed by the Hon ble Apex Court. We have read the order dated 8.3.2016 in CA No. 1954/2006 , passed by the Division Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The matter in-fact was remanded by the first appellate authority, which was upheld by both the Hon ble Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court. The aforementioned order dated 8.3.2016, is passed in an appeal against the order of the Hon ble High Court. What is forthcoming is that the dispute in the said case was whether M/s. Enercon (I) Ltd, would be eligible for exemption u/s 8 read with the 5th Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. It is in this background that said orders needs to be read. The relevant portion of the order, is reproduced below for ease of reference The High Court after taking note of the provisions of Section 8 and Entry 57 has observed that meaning of the words Wind Mills is not defined under the Act and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent law and to an exemption, which incidentally is not a dispute in the present proceeding. The findings of the Hon ble High Court, as quoted supra and of the Supreme Court are qua the Act and the exemption in question. In view of the foregoing, the appellant s averment relying on the above judgement that the specially designed transformers for WOEG, which perform dual function of step down and step up, should be treated as a part WOEG, is not legally tenable. 15. The appellant we find has relied upon many case laws to substantiate his argument, some of which are as under viz (i) Sonai Engineering P Ltd. 2014 (8) TaxCorp (AT) 37915 (Pune) (ii) Parry Engineering Electronics Ltd Tax Appeal 604/2012 Gujarat High Court (iii) Precicast P Ltd Western Precicast P Ltd VTM Ltd [citation not mentioned] (iv) CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. 2016 TaxCorp (DT) 64961 (HC Bombay) These are judgements pertaining to the Income Tax Act. A bare reading would reveal that the dispute in a majority of the cases pertained to depreciation. Depreciation not being an issue in the present appeal, we do not find the case law applicable as far as the present appeal is concerned. In-fact, we would like to subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
