TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue involved in this case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of technological equipments and parts for Bio-mass energy Boiler. The appellant claims benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 for the goods cleared by them, namely - (i) Technological equipment for Biomass energy Boiler as per drawing, (ii) Chimney as per drawing for Bio mass fired Travelling Grate Boiler. (iii) Deaerator structure (Columns and Beams) for Bio-Mass. (iv) Buckstay for Bio-Mass as per drawing, (v) Fastners for Chimney for Bio-Mass Fired Travelling Grate Boiler as per drawing (vi) Forced Flow casing as per drawing (vii) Air Heater Hopper as per drawing, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that the issue is no longer res integra as it is covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. - 2005-TIOL-1169-CESTAT-DEL and M/s. Shree Venkateswara Engg Corporation v. CCE Coimbatore - 2006-TIOL-908-CESTAT-MAD. 5. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the goods have been cleared as parts of Bio-mass Energy Boilers while the exemption was available only for complete energy system/devices. He however agreed that the chimneys were in the nature of devices. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is about the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r non-conventional energy devices/systems, the exemption under this Notification would be available to the chimneys. We agree with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals), as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the device is a thing made for a particular purpose and as such the chimney meant for biomass fired boiler has to be treated as non-conventional energy device." 7.2 On the same issue, this Tribunal in another judgement in the case of Shree Venkateswara Engg Corporation (supra) upheld the exemption benefit to complete device cleared in knocked down condition. The relevant extracts from para 5 of the said judgement are reproduced below:- "5. On comparison of these descriptions with other descriptions given in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h may or may not be there of the goods cleared. When a description is very wide without excluding any specific category of items it would not be permissible to deny the benefit of exemption based on individual description which is not mentioned in the notification. In the case of Hemraj Gordhandas Vs. CC - 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 350 (S.C.), Wherein it was held that, "it is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such ....