TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010-CE, dt.27.02.2010 as amended by Notification No.26/2012-CE, dt.08.05.2012. Alleging that the goods which were cleared by the appellant do not satisfy the condition of Notification No.15/2010-CE, dt.27.02.2010, the demand notice was issued for recovery of the duty amounting to Rs. 15,58,60,384/- and appropriation of duty already paid for this period, and duty paid for the period subsequently i.e. from 28.09.2013 to March 2014 with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and 50% of the duty as penalty under Section 11AC(c) of CEA, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri J.C. Patel for the appellant submits that the Appellant while clearing the steel structures to one M/s Areva Solar India Pvt. Ltd complied with the condition of the notification inasmuch as the clearances were made against proper certificate issued the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, recommending grant of the said exemption. It is his contention that even in the Central Excise invoices, the goods were described as structures and parts of structures for initial setting up of solar plant,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vancing his arguments further the learned Advocate submitted that in the letter of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy referred to and relied upon in the Show Cause Notice, it speaks of cement and steel required for construction; which cannot be equated and applied to support structures of its reflectors and receivers used as 'components' and the Ministry itself clarifies that the mounting structures are essential part/component of solar thermal power plant. Besides, the linear fresnel reflector based solar system - Operation and Maintenance Manual issued by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, at Para 4.2 and 4.3 mentions that the support structures are one of the main components of reflectors and receivers. He has further submitted that the supporting structures have been manufactured in accordance with the specific drawing and design provided by M/s Areva Solar India Pvt. Ltd, which were meant to be used for the reflectors and receivers. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate referred to the following decisions:- a) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CC Chennai 1999 (108) ELT 448 (Tribunal) b) CCE Calcutta-II Vs Techno Fab Manufacturing Ltd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of Tribunal in the case of A.C.C. Limited Vs CCE, Raipur - 2013 (295) ELT 708 (Tri-Del) and the decision of Authorities for Advancing Rulings, New Delhi In RE: Enercon (India) Ltd - 2011 (270) ELT 132 (AAR). 9. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 10. The issue involved in the present case for consideration is: whether the structures and parts of structures manufactured and cleared for initial setting up of solar power plant consisting of reflector, support beam, support post, upper/middle/lower vertical leg weldment, cross beam are eligible to the benefit of Notification No.15/2010-CE, dt.27.02.2010 as amended. Before reverting to the arguments advanced by both sides, it is necessary to reproduce the said notifications. Notification No.15/2010-Cx., dt.27.02.2010: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (1 of 1944), the Central Government on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all items of machinery, including prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliances, control gear and transmission equipment and auxiliary equipment (inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certifies that the goods are required for initial setting up of a solar power generation project or facility; and (2) the Chief Executive Officer of the project furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer, to the effect that - (i) the said goods will be used only in the said project and not for any other use; and (ii) in the event of non-compliance of sub-clause (i), the Project Developer of such project shall pay the duty which would have been leviable at the time of clearance of goods, but for this exemption." (F.No.334/1/2012-TRU) (Sanjeev Kumar Singh) Under Secretary to the Government of India 11. The items manufactured and cleared by the Appellant for installation of power generation project, satisfied other conditions prescribed under the said notification, are not in dispute. The point of dispute between the Revenue and the Appellant is that the aforesaid items whether could be called as 'components' required for initial setting up of a solar power generation project or facility. On a pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor • Receiver • Support Structure • Tracking System 14. Also, in a letter dt.09.10.2013, issued by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, New Delhi, while responding to the query raised by Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Private Limited, addressed it to Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II, opined that the mounting structure forms an essential part/component of the Solar Thermal Power Plant which is required to mount mirrors/reflectors and solar steam generators to concentrate solar energy and thereby subsequently generate system for power generation. 15. The learned Adjudicating authority, on the other hand, referring to the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, dt.06.08.2012, while clarifying the eligibility of exemption under No.15/2010-CE, dt.27.02.2010 as amended, where under it is mentioned that the exemption under the said notification does not cover cement, steel and admixture required to execute the civil work to construct buildings, storage tanks etc for solar power project and facility, recorded that the present structures since used for the said purpose, not eligible to the benefit of the said notification. He has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was whether radio cabinets sold by a dealer would attract entry 65 or the residuary entry 22. It was held that while the word "part" has a general sense, "spare part" takes colour from the word "spare", that is a part which would require replacement in ordinary course on account of wear and tear and would not have the amplitude of the word "component". It was indicated that the owner of radio will not ordinarily keep an extra cabinet spare and, therefore, cabinet cannot be regarded as a spare part, though it is a component of radio and, therefore, entry No. 65 would not apply. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pritam Singh - 1968 (22) STC 414 (All. HC) the question arose in the context of manufacture of bodies of motor vehicles. Item 24 of the exemption notification referred to motor vehicles and component parts of motor vehicles. It was held that a component part of an article is an integral part necessary for the constitution of the whole article and without it the article will not be complete and body of a motor vehicle being an integral part of the motor vehicle has to be regarded as a component part. In Sujan Singh & Another v. A.A.C. Sales Tax - 1969 (24) STC 504 (Delhi HC)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has taken a similar view. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Tube Investments of India Ltd. - 1992 (85) STC 245 (Madras HC) it was held that dynamo of a cycle is not a component part but an accessory of cycle. In Televista Electronics v. Commr. of Sales Tax - 1992 (87) STC 410 (Delhi HC) in considering the entry relating to wireless receiving instruments and spare parts and accessories in the schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, it was held that a spare part is always a component part but the converse may not be invariably true. 15. In Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held that paper core used for rewinding of paper in rolls is a component part within the meaning of Notification No.201/79. The court relied on the dictionary meaning of the word "component" as "a constituent part'. Since use of paper core is necessary for rewinding of paper if delivered to the customers in rolls, it should be a component part within the meaning of the Notification. 16. Notifications 246/76, 77/90 and 112/87 do not define the word 'component part" with the result that one has to go by the meaning the word carries in common pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion or restriction. There are several notifications where such qualifying or restrictive words have been used to suggest that the component part must have been used in the initial assembly or in the manufacture of the final product thereby excluding "spare" from the ambit of the expression "component part". There are no such qualifying or restrictive words used in the notifications under consideration. Hence, with respect, it is not possible to agree with the view taken in some of the decisions of the Tribunal that "component" implies parts used in the initial assembly or manufacture and excludes "spares". The amplitude and significance of the word "component" cannot be cut down in the absence of clear words indicative of any intention to restrict its meaning and operation. The view taken in Vaz Fowarding Pvt. Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal) was not followed in Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd. - 1993 (64) E.L.T. 286 (Tribunal), but the distinction drawn based on the fact that the words "component parts" occur in isolation and not in conjunction with the final product is a distinction without difference. The amplitude of the words "component part" is not in any way restricted by usin....