2013 (12) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms Commissioner's decision on waste-to-energy boilers, upholding manufacturer's benefit eligibility.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III Versus M/s VIKRANT INDS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III Versus M/s VIKRANT INDS - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 447 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing respondent's appeal based on previous order-in-appeal; Entitlement of benefit of Notification 5/98 as amended by Notification 6/2000 for manufacturers of Husk fired boilers and parts; Challenge by revenue on Commissioner (Appeals) not giving independent opinion; Manufacturer's claim for exemption based on the nature of the goods produced.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeal of the respondents was allowed based on a previous order-in-appeal on the same issue. The main contention was whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification 5/98 as amended by Notification 6/2000 during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled in favor of the respondents on the same issue.2. The revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, arguing that an independent opinion should have been given on the merits of the case instead of following the previous order. The revenue contended that the respondents, who are manufacturers of pressure parts of boilers and not complete units, should not be entitled to the exemption provided under the said Notifications.3. The respondent's counsel presented evidence, including pictures of the items produced, which resembled a boiler. Additionally, the Order in Original confirmed the manufacturing of boilers utilizing agricultural or municipal waste for burning, resulting in the production of steam. The counsel argued that no show-cause notices had been issued for the future period, supporting the claim for entitlement to the benefit of Notification 6/2000.4. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the item produced by the respondents indeed qualified as a boiler, as confirmed by the Order in Original and the pictures presented. Referring to a Board Circular, it was established that husk fired boilers could be considered as devices converting agricultural and municipal waste into energy. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and disposing of the respondent's cross-objection.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.