Solar project exemption covers module mounting structures; delayed MNRE certificate does not defeat substantive eligibility.

Module mounting structures used in a solar power generation project were held to fall within the scope of Notification No. 15/2010-CE because the exemption covered machinery required for initial setting up of the project and used broad inclusive language. The absence of an express reference to mounting structures in the inclusive part did not narrow that wider exemption. Delayed submission of the MNRE certificate did not defeat the exemption, since the certificate was subsequently obtained and the lapse was only procedural. The substantive exemption was therefore available, and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether module mounting structures used in a solar power generation project were covered by Notification No. 15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010. (ii) Whether failure to submit the MNRE certificate before clearance of the goods disentitled the assessee to exemption.

Issue (i): Whether module mounting structures used in a solar power generation project were covered by Notification No. 15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010.

Analysis: The notification extended exemption to all items of machinery required for the initial setting up of a solar power generation project and further used an inclusive formulation. On that construction, the main part of the exemption was wide enough to cover mounting structures intended specifically for the solar project. The absence of an express mention of mounting structures in the inclusive part did not narrow the scope of the main exemption language.

Conclusion: The module mounting structures were covered by the exemption notification.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to submit the MNRE certificate before clearance of the goods disentitled the assessee to exemption.

Analysis: The certificate was applied for and obtained later because of administrative delay. The defect was procedural and there was no absence of a valid certificate. The substantive benefit of an exemption cannot be denied merely because the supporting certificate was produced after clearance, once the entitlement to exemption is otherwise made out.

Conclusion: The delayed production of the MNRE certificate did not defeat the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal exemption notification must be applied strictly to determine eligibility, but once the goods and the claim fall within its ambit, substantive exemption cannot be denied for a curable procedural lapse such as delayed production of the supporting certificate.

---