2024 (4) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Pole shoes qualify for excise exemption as rotor parts used in wind electricity generators

CESTAT Bangalore dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging exemption claim for pole shoes under Central Excise notifications. Revenue argued pole shoes, ... Recovery of duty with interest and penalty - wrongfully claiming benefit of exemption under Sl.No.84 of N/N. 6/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 (for the period December 2009 to 15/03/2012) and under Sl.No.332 of N/N. 12/2012-CE dt. 17/03/2012 - case of Revenue is that since pole shoe is a part of rotor being not used inside the factory for manufacture of WOEG, benefit of notification is not admissible - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Analysing the relevant entries finally the learned Commissioner has observed that rotor and controller are items which are distinctly different from the generator being located outside the generator which are essential for generation of electricity; hence covered under Sl.No.13 of List 5/8 whereas ‘pole shoe’ on the other hand is a part of the generator rotor assembly which rotates inside the generator stator assembly and converts mechanical energy into electrical energy resulting into generation of electricity. There are merit in the observation of the learned Commissioner which is based on technical opinion and also the detailed study of the manufacturing process of ‘pole shoe’ and its ultimate use in the generator which has not been contradicted in any manner by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal has simply stated the pole sole is part of rotor which in turn parts of the WOEG, implies that any part of the parts of the WOEG is covered under Sl.No.21 of the said list and not sr. no. 13 of the said List 5/8 of the Notification. There is a fallacy in the approach of the Revenue in appreciating the facts, inasmuch as the ‘rotor assembly’ used inside the WOEG is different from the ‘rotors’ which is placed outside the generator, but an essential part of the wind mill and accordingly allowed exemption - ‘pole shoe’ being part of the rotor assembly which in turn used in the generator and a part of the WOEG, hence squarely covered by the N/N. 6/2006CE dated 01.3.2006 and No.12/2012CE dt 17.3.2012. The Judgement cited by the learned AR for the Revenue viz. Raydean Industries case [2022 (4) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is on different set of facts and hence not applicable to the present case. In the said case, the issue involved was whether module mounting structures be part of the Sl.No.10 i.e. “Solar power generating system” of List 8 of the said Notification 12/2012CE dt. 17.3.2012. After analysing the facts, the Tribunal concluded that there is a difference between device and system and upholding the finding of the Commissioner, held that module mounting structure is a part of solar power generating system, hence not covered under the said entry. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal being devoid of merit is liable for dismissal - appeal of Revenue dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for Exemption under Sl.No.84 and Sl.No.332 of Notification No.6/2006-CE and Notification No.12/2012-CE.2. Classification of 'Pole Shoe' as a part of Wind Operated Electricity Generator (WOEG).3. Applicability of Sl.No.21 of List 5/8 for parts consumed within the factory.4. Valuation and Quantification of Demand.5. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand.Summary:1. Eligibility for Exemption under Sl.No.84 and Sl.No.332 of Notification No.6/2006-CE and Notification No.12/2012-CE:The core issue was whether the respondents could claim exemption for 'Pole Shoe' under Sl.No.84 of Notification No.6/2006-CE and Sl.No.332 of Notification No.12/2012-CE. The respondents argued that 'Pole Shoe' is a component of WOEG, hence eligible for exemption. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that 'Pole Shoe' is indeed a part of WOEG and qualifies for the exemption.2. Classification of 'Pole Shoe' as a part of Wind Operated Electricity Generator (WOEG):The Revenue contended that 'Pole Shoe' is a part of the rotor, not directly used in WOEG, and thus not eligible for exemption. However, the Tribunal, agreeing with the Commissioner's findings, noted that 'Pole Shoe' is an essential part of the generator rotor assembly within WOEG, not just the rotor. The Tribunal concluded that 'Pole Shoe' is a part of WOEG, thus eligible for exemption.3. Applicability of Sl.No.21 of List 5/8 for parts consumed within the factory:The Revenue argued that 'Pole Shoe' should fall under Sl.No.21 of List 5/8, which applies to parts consumed within the factory. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that Sl.No.13 of List 5/8 covers WOEG and its components, including 'Pole Shoe'. Therefore, Sl.No.21 was deemed irrelevant for 'Pole Shoe'.4. Valuation and Quantification of Demand:The Tribunal did not delve into valuation and quantification of demand, as the primary issue was resolved in favor of the respondents. The Tribunal noted that these issues became academic since the exemption was upheld.5. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand:The respondents argued against the invocation of the extended period, citing previous disclosures and proceedings. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue, as the primary contention was decided on merit.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming that 'Pole Shoe' is a part of WOEG and eligible for exemption under the relevant notifications. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and other ancillary issues were not analyzed as they became academic.