9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted exemption to Wind Mill and parts thereof. Serial No. 251 of subsequent Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 read with Serial No. 13 of List No. 5 appended to the said Notification granted exemption to wind operated electricity generators, their components and parts thereof. Following the ratio of Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd [ 1999 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] having held that the tower is a part of wind operated electricity generator, ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Undisputedly, the goods manufactured by the appellants and cleared by them were meant for wind operated electricity generator, being tower material and, as such, were entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that the notification is not applicable, they could have raised the demand within the normal period instead of waiting for three years to do the needful. Thus, appellants succeed on merits as also on limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the confirmation of demand of duty as also imposition of personal penalties upon both the appellants. In a nutshell, both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. - HON'BLE ARCHANA WADHWA (J) AND C. SATAPATHY (T), MEMBERS For the Appellant : Viswanathan, Adv. For the Respondent : Ajay Saxena, SDR Order Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) 1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed duty of Rs. 1,03,31,791/- (Rupees one crore three lakh thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 10-12-99 and 2-3-2000 claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 and 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 respectively. The Revenue however entertained a view that there was no provision for exemption in respect of the parts of Wind Mill in the subsequent Notification No. 6/2000, which granted exemption only to wind operated electricity generators, their components and parts thereof. Inasmuch as the goods manufactured by the appellants were not the parts of the wind operated electricity generator, they were not entitled to exemption. In support of the above view, Revenue compared two notifications i.e. Notification No. 5/99, which was substituted by 6/2000 and held that Serial No. 13 of the List No. 4 of appendix to Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 28-2-99 read with Serial No. 13 of List No. 4 appended to the said Notification granted exemption to Wind Mill and parts thereof. Serial No. 251 of subsequent Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 read with Serial No. 13 of List No. 5 appended to the said Notification granted exemption to wind operated electricity generators, their components and parts thereof. The question required to be decided is as to whether the tower material manufactured by the appellants can be considered to be a part of wind operated electricity generator. We note that while considering the said issue, the Commissioner has taken into account, the definition of electric generator as appearing in various technical books and has held that the tower materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the present case. Undisputedly, the goods manufactured by the appellants and cleared by them were meant for wind operated electricity generator, being tower material and, as such, were entitled to the benefit of Notification 6/2000. 6. We also do not see much force in the adjudicating authority's contention that earlier Notification No. 5/99, dated 28-2-99 extended separate exemption to Wind Mill and parts and to wind energy operated electric generators, thus, indicating that these two items are considered to be two separate goods for the purposes of exemption, inasmuch as Wind Mill and parts have been eliminated in the subsequent notification, the tower materials, which were primarily meant for Wind Mill cannot be allowed ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants, so as to justifiably invoke longer period of limitation. It is well settled that claiming of exemption notification by itself cannot amount to any mis-statement or suppression. Surprisingly all the relevant information on the basis of which the show cause notice has been issued in the year 2003 has been gathered by the Revenue from the appellant's own documents and records. What they could do in 2003, could have been done by them within the period of limitation also. If the department was of the view that the notification is not applicable, they could have raised the demand within the normal period instead of waiting for three years to do the needful. We also note that the reference to Larger Bench's decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
