9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early a part of the Wind Electric Generator and not a General/Civil Structure as understood by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Commissioner is clearly in error in misunderstanding that the 'tower' in question is not a part of Wind Energy Generator, nor do we see any justification for generalizing the 'tower' in question. The conclusion drawn is therefore bereft of any merits and hence, the said finding cannot sustain, which was aside. In one of the cases, viz. CC Chennai Vs Suzlon Towers and Structures Limited, Chennai Bench [2024 (1) TMI 1171 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has even considered the classification of 'tower flanges' against rival tariffs vis-à-vis the eligibility for exemption benefit of Notification No.12/2012. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he importer had misclassified the said Towers under CT Item 8503 0090, availed benefit of 7.5% of Basic Customs Duty and 'Nil' rate of duty under Central Excise Notification No. 06/2006, Serial No. 84. The DRI appears to have investigated into the issue during the course of which, they appear to have summoned general manager of the importer to record his statement, including some of the other employees of the importer-company. Upon analysis of the statements in the context of the classification admitted by the importer, the DRI appears to have felt that the goods in question were appropriately classifiable under CTH 7308 as according to them, there is a specific heading for classification of towers. 3. It was thus alleged that the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate is restricted to the normal period alone. 6. Heard Ms. Shobhana Krishnan, Ld. Advocate for the Importer-Appellant and Shri N.Satyanarayana, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Commissioner-Respondent. 7. We have carefully considered the documents placed on record and we have also considered the judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments before us. Upon considering the rival contentions, the only issue to be decided by us is, "Whether the Revenue is justified in re-classifying the Towers in question under CTI 7308 as against that declared by the appellant under CTH 8503 ?" 8. The CTI 7308 refers to "Structures and parts of structure, (for example bridges and bridge-sections, lock-gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but what makes the difference is the reference to 'Wind Power Generator'. There is no doubt that right from the importation, the import was clear that the goods in question were used solely and exclusively as 'Tower' part of WOEG. In fact, from Circular No. 1008/15/2015-CX dated 20.10.2015 which is relied upon by Ms. Shobhana Krishnan refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. CCE Nagpur Vs Hyundai Unitech Electrical Transmission Ltd.- 2015 (323) ELT 220 (SC) wherein, it has been held clearly that the 'Tower' is a part of the Generator and hence, door thereof has to be necessarily a 'part of the Generator'. The said Board's circular reads as under: - Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) - Tower, Nacelle, Rot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indmill 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 Central Excise and Customs, Raipur in order-in-original dated 28-2-2005 as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur vide his orders dated 10-2-2003. The said orders were accepted by the Revenue as it is recorded by the CESTAT that the Revenue could not produce any evidence to show that those orders were challenged by it. Further, since the tower is hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner concerned, if required. 6. Difficulty experienced, if any, in implementing the circular should be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version would follow. 10. From this, it is clear that the 'tower' in question, as understood by the Board is clearly a part of the Wind Electric Generator and not a General/Civil Structure as understood by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Commissioner is clearly in error in misunderstanding that the 'tower' in question is not a part of Wind Energy Generator, nor do we see any justification for generalizing the 'tower' in question. The conclusion drawn is therefore bereft of any merits and hence, the said finding cannot sustain, which we set aside. Further, the ld. Advocate ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
