2023 (7) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Aluminium structures in Wind Operated Electricity Generators qualify for tax exemption

The Tribunal held that Aluminium structures and fabricated items used in Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) are eligible for exemption under ... Exemption to parts of Wind Mills / Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Aluminium structures and fabricated items used as towers are integral part of Wind Turbines or Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) or not - denial of benefit on the ground that such goods are general purpose equipment and are not specific parts of the WOEG. HELD THAT:- The details of the goods manufactured and how these form part of the WOEG is also explained by the write up as well as the image furnished above. Though the adjudicating authority has considered the details submitted by the appellant, has concluded that these items are general purpose equipment and therefore exemption cannot be granted. The very same issue has been settled by the Larger Bench in the case of RAKHOH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2016 (11) TMI 1207 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that anchor rings consists of large rings with long bolts attached to it etc. as parts of tower specially designed for WOEG and are eligible for exemption under Notification NO.6/2006 dated 1.3.2006. The said Larger Bench decision has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Recently, the Tribunal in the case of M/S. RRB ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEAPORT-IMPORT) , CHENNAI [2023 (3) TMI 754 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had analysed the very same issue and held that the assessee is eligible for exemption. The goods are eligible for exemption. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of Aluminium structures and fabricated items as integral parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.2. Validity of the appellant's claim based on previous judgments and clarifications.3. Consideration of the appellant's detailed submissions and evidence.Summary:1. Eligibility for Exemption:The primary issue was whether Aluminium structures and fabricated items used as towers for Wind Turbines or WOEG qualify for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The appellant argued that these items, including Aluminium Platforms, Ladders, Electrical items like LED lights, and Steel parts, are integral to the manufacture of WOEG. The appellant supported this claim with purchase orders, third-party certifications, and a declaration from WOEG manufacturers.2. Previous Judgments and Clarifications:The appellant cited several precedents where similar items were granted exemption. Notably, the Tribunal in the case of Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd. held that components designed specifically for WOEG are eligible for exemption. The Supreme Court in CCE V Hyundai Unitech Electrical Transmission Ltd. also supported this view, stating that items like windmill doors and electrical boxes are integral parts of WOEG. Additionally, the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy and CBEC had issued clarifications confirming the eligibility of such parts for exemption.3. Consideration of Submissions and Evidence:The Tribunal reviewed the appellant's detailed submissions, including technical write-ups, photographs, and a Chartered Engineer's certificate. Despite the original authority's view that these items were general-purpose equipment, the Tribunal found that the items were indeed integral to WOEG. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been resolved in favor of exemption in previous cases, such as Rakhoh Enterprises, where anchor rings and load spreading plates were deemed parts of the tower for WOEG and thus eligible for exemption.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Aluminium structures and fabricated items are eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.