Tribunal denies exemption for roofing structures in bio-gas plant dispute.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus BINNY LTD.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus BINNY LTD. - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1337 (Tri. - Chennai)
Issues involved: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 205/88-C.E. is available to the roofing structures fabricated for digester tanks.
Summary:In the appeal by Revenue, the main contention was whether the roofing structures fabricated by the company for digester tanks are eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. The Revenue argued that the exemption only applies to bio-gas plants and engines, and since the roofing structures were not part of the bio-gas plant manufactured by the company, they should not be granted the exemption. The Collector (Appeals) was criticized for extending the benefit of the Notification to the roofing structures.
On the other hand, the company's advocate argued that they supplied a complete bio-gas plant to their customer, emphasizing that the bio-gas plant is essentially a closed Digester. They referred to expert opinions and publications to support their claim that the roofing structures should be considered part of the bio-gas plant, thus qualifying for the exemption.
After considering both arguments, the Tribunal noted that the company classified their product as "BIO-GAS PLANT EQUIPMENT" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, indicating that they themselves treated it as machinery parts and not the machinery itself. As the digester comes into existence at the site and not in the factory, the Tribunal concluded that the company did not meet the criteria for the exemption under the Notification. The appeal by Revenue was allowed, setting aside the decision of the Collector (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 