9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The fact that the components/sub-assemblies have to be removed in different convoys and not in a single convoy is a practical reality. It is not possible for anyone to remove all components/parts and sub-assemblies together in one single convoy, leave alone in a single transportation. The instructions in the circular also do not provide that at the point of clearance from the factory of the manufacturer all these assemblies/sub-assemblies have to move out together. There is no dispute or contrary evidence to show that the components/assembly/sub-assemblies cumulatively cleared from the appellant's factory do not form a turbine for hydraulic electric equipment for capacity not exceeding 15MW. We however note that there is some discussion in the order of the Commissioner about the certificates produced from the electricity Boards. It is claimed that the certificates did not indicate the supplies of complete turbine instead, they talked about supply of sub-assemblies. We have perused the various invoices presented in the appeal papers and it is noted that the invoice do talk about supply of turbines. The contract is also for supply of turbines. Perhaps on reading of a certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a complete device" and the evidence is also produced for supply of such a device to the buyer. The appellant also placed reliance on the order of CBEC No. 35/11/94, dated 7-9-94 whereunder, it was advised that the benefit of Notification No. 78/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90 as amended will be available to all machinery/components/equipment, instrument etc. when these are cleared in CKD and SKD condition from the factory of manufacturer, provided that evidence is produced that "goods cleared form part of a complete pollution control equipment/systems" and the evidence is also produced for supply of such equipment to the buyer. The appellants also sought reliance on the judgment of the CEGAT in the case reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 498 (T) in the case of Kumar Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that the circular of the Board although pertains to a later notification, the two notifications being identical in their purpose, the Board's clarificatory Circular would certainly apply to the dispute arising out of the earlier notification also. Accordingly, it is submitted that the clarification issued in the context of notification which is similar to the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issue, the CEGAT bench vide their decision reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 781 (Tri. - Del.) has concurred that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Flat Products (supra) and differed with the judgment of the bench in the case of Space Age Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 544 (T). 6. We note that the matter can be decided without going into the controversy of conflicting decisions of the coordinate benches. The dispute does not relate to the classification of the impugned goods. The issue relates to extension of exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 57/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 available to turbines for hydroelectric equipment of a capacity not exceeding 15 MW. In other words, unlike several exemption notifications where the classification of goods under a particular Heading/Sub-Heading or a chapter is specified, in this case there is no requirement in the notification that the goods under clearance have to fall under a specific Heading or Sub-Heading. The said notification does not at all refer to the classification of the equipment. In a situation of the above nature, the exemption granted by the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their clearance, in any form - unassembled, disassembled or unfinished but have essential feature of finished goods, the same are to be classified as parts of hydraulic turbines classifiable under Heading 8410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. I also observe here that this is a matter where benefit of the exemption Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-88, as amended, are being sought by the party. The exemption provided against S. No. 16A is for "turbines for hydro electric equipment of a capacity not exceeding 15MW". Further, parts of such turbines are not eligible for this exemption in terms of S. No. 18 of this notification. Therefore, the exemption is only for the complete turbines. The notification does not speak of clearances of parts or components of turbines for the completion of the turbines or clearance of turbines in CKD/SKD condition." 7. It is an established law that the instruction of the Board are binding on the authorities functioning under the Board. The instructions very clearly lay down the guidelines that :- (1) Evidence is produced that the goods cleared (emphasis ours) form part of a complete device, and the evidence is also produced for supply of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
