2000 (5) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Bright Cables is whether the power cables manufactured by them are parts of wind mills so as to be eligible for exemption under notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988. 2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants M/s. Bright Cables manufa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that this decision was followed in the case of BHEL v. Collector of Customs, Chennai, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 448 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 331. Finally, learned Advocate referred to Note 4 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff and contended that cables are to be classified along with machines. 2. Countering the arguments Shri V.M. Udhoji, learned D.R. submitted that power cables manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and they are not part of the wind mills. We observe that the adjudicating authority in the adjudication Order No. 143/96 has mentioned that the power cables are used for transmitting electricity produced by wind mills to sub-stations for supply to users. The decision in the case of Elecon Engg. is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as in that case a certificate was produced in supp....