2017 (5) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hes on the issue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have cleared three weighing machines and one conveyor without payment of central excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 (Sl.No.237). The dispute is relating to the entitlement of the appellant for the said exemption. The exemption was denied to the appellant by the Original Authority and the first Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Tribunal, which passed the above mentioned interim order. 3. The relevant portion of the said notification no.6/2002 providing for exemption of excise duty, is as below:- Sl.No.237 Any Chapter Non-conventional energy devices/systems Specified in Nil - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice for 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. And allow exemption to the assessee." 8. Whereas, in the case of Gerb Vibration Control System (P) Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal observed as under:- "7. The impugned goods are meant for use for Non-Conventional renewable bagasse biomass/bio waste based cogeneration power project. Since the impugned item can be considered as parts of waste convention de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench for examination and decision. The Id. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted a written note. He argued that "since the weighing machines as well as the conveyors manufactured by the appellants were not part of the main machine but can safely be held to be a device used for the conversion of the waste for producing energy because without the said notification the manufacturing cannot be completed". He submitted that there is no need for interpreting the scope of Sl.No.21 of the List 9 in the notification as the appellants are covered by the scope of entry SI.N. 16 itself. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the exemption covered by Sl.No.16 and Sl.No.21 has different scope. The decisions cited in the interim order of the Division Benc....