2017 (2) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tems. 2. Shrie Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that very same issue has been decided by this Tribunal in respondent's own case which is reported as Pushpam Forging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad[2006(193) ELT 334(Tri. Mumbai)]. The said decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. D 24926 of 2005 vide Order dated 21-1-2006, whereby Revenue's appeal was dismissed. 4. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue is no longer res integra as in respondent's own case the issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsumption at site in tower is not questioned on facts nor it can be said that flange is not used where the tower came into existence. The concept of interpretation of "consumed in factory of production" & limiting the same to the Central Excise registered premises of the appellants herein & deprive the use at site cannot be upheld. 2.3 In any case, the flange being part of tower which is Essential Component of Wind Operated Electrical Generator, an unconventional energy service device, would be eligible under Sr. No. 5 if not under 20 as part of Sr. No. 1 to 19. Coverage is also to be available under Sr. No. 13 of list 5. 2.4 The reliance placed on the decision of Damodar I. Malpani - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) & submission of invoi....