Tribunal Denies Exemption for Wind Mill Parts

The tribunal denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 and its amendment, holding that anchor rings, Load Spreading Plates (LSP), and wind mill doors are not components directly involved in electricity generation for Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG). The extended period of limitation was applied due to non-disclosure of specific items in ER-1 returns. Penalties under the Central Excise Act were set aside for lack of justification. Duty demands with interest were upheld for M/s. Rakhoh Enterprises, while the eligibility of wind mill doors for exemption was referred to a Larger Bench for further consideration in the case of Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 amended by Notification No. 12/2012.
2. Classification of goods as components of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG).
3. Application of extended period of limitation.
4. Imposition of penalties under relevant sections of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 Amended by Notification No. 12/2012:
The core issue in all appeals was the denial of the exemption benefit under Notification No. 6/2006 and its amendment Notification No. 12/2012. The appellants argued that their products, namely Anchor Rings, Load Spreading Plates (LSP), and wind mill doors, should be considered as parts of WOEG and thus eligible for exemption. The tribunal analyzed various notifications, including No. 205/1988, 5/2005, 6/2006, and 12/2012, which exempted specific goods related to non-conventional energy devices. The tribunal concluded that the exemption was intended only for components directly related to the electricity generation process, such as rotors and wind turbine controllers. It was held that the tower and foundation parts, such as anchor rings and LSP, are not directly involved in generating electricity and thus do not qualify for the exemption.

2. Classification of Goods as Components of WOEG:
The appellants contended that the components like anchor rings, LSP, and wind mill doors are integral parts of WOEG. The tribunal, however, differentiated between components directly involved in generating electricity and those providing structural support. It was held that the term 'generator' refers specifically to the part of the nacelle that converts wind energy into electrical energy. The tribunal concluded that the tower and foundation parts, including anchor rings and LSP, are not components of WOEG but rather structural elements. Similarly, wind mill doors, which do not participate in electricity generation, were not considered parts of WOEG.

3. Application of Extended Period of Limitation:
The tribunal examined whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was applicable. The adjudicating authority had held that the appellants did not disclose the specific items for which they claimed exemption in their ER-1 returns, constituting suppression of facts. The tribunal agreed with this view, noting that the returns did not specifically mention anchor rings and LSP, thus justifying the invocation of the extended period. However, for the period from April 2012 onwards, the demand was within the normal time limit.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
The tribunal considered the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was noted that Gemini had been declaring the goods in their ER-1 returns, and there were contrary judgments on what constitutes parts of WOEG. Therefore, the tribunal decided to set aside the penalties, emphasizing that the conduct of the appellants did not warrant penal action.

Separate Judgments:
In the case of M/s. Rakhoh Enterprises, the duty demand along with interest was upheld, but the penalty was set aside. For Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal, acknowledging a contrary decision by a Co-ordinate Bench, referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide on the eligibility of wind mill doors for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the benefit of the exemption notification should be denied, duty demands with interest should be upheld, and penalties should be set aside. The matter regarding wind mill doors was referred to a Larger Bench for a final decision.

---