TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules against Crompton Greaves Ltd. in energy device exemption appeal /2002-CE</h1> <h3>Crompton Greaves Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., ruling that the electric motors supplied by them did not qualify for exemption under ... Exemption of duty under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 - Held that:- Tribunal is specifically covered the components and parts whereas the entry in the current case does not cover the components and parts specifically - decision of Pushpam Forgings is not applicable to the current case. The motor is by definition, a device that conversion of electric energy into mechanical energy. It does not convert agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, Municipal & Urban waste into energy. It is not a energy producing device by any stretch of imagination. Thus, it would not be covered under sl. No. 16 of list no. 9 of notification no. 6/2002-CE. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002-CE regarding exemption from Central Excise duty for non-conventional energy devices/systems.2. Determining whether electric motors supplied by M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. qualify for exemption under the notification.3. Application of Tribunal's decision in Pushpam Forging case to the current scenario.4. Classification of electric motors as energy producing devices under the notification.Analysis:1. The appellant, M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., cleared electric motors at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, which exempted non-conventional energy devices/systems. The motors were supplied to customers using non-conventional energy schemes. The dispute arose as to whether the motors qualified as non-conventional energy devices under the notification.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands, stating that the motors did not provide non-conventional energy as specified in the exemption notification. The appellant argued that the motors were essential components of energy-producing devices, supported by certificates from authorized project implementers. However, the Commissioner upheld the demands based on the description in List No. 9 of the notification.3. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's decision in Pushpam Forging case, which dealt with a different entry in the notification. The Tribunal noted that the entry in the Pushpam Forging case specifically covered components and parts, unlike the entry in the current case. Therefore, the Pushpam Forging decision was deemed inapplicable to the present scenario.4. The Tribunal concluded that electric motors, by definition, convert electric energy into mechanical energy and do not convert waste into energy. As such, the motors did not qualify as energy-producing devices under the notification. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed, emphasizing that the motors were not covered under the relevant entry of the notification.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the interpretation of the exemption notification, the qualification of electric motors as non-conventional energy devices, the application of precedent from a previous case, and the classification of motors as energy-producing devices under the notification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
