TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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, and the details of the parts of the solar plan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted 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 2003 (158) ELT 515 (Tri-Kol) c) Hyundai Unitech Electric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 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 (including those required for testing and quality control) and components, required for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecutive 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 plain reading of the aforesaid notification, it is clear that all items of machinery are exempted which included prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner 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 observed that the steel structures being used for civil work especially barred from exemption under the said notification. 16. We do not find substance in the observations of the learned Commissioner, inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to show that any of these items have been used for exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d "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) the question was whether the body of motor vehicle is a spare part within the meaning of the entry "motor vehicles including chassis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes and spare parts of motor vehicles" under item 1 of first schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. It was held that spare part is an extra part kept for use in eme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 parlance. The dictionary meaning of "component" is "one of the parts or elements of which anything is made of or into which it may be resolved", or "a constituent part" and this meaning has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178. Much is sought to be made out of the meaning stated as "constituent part". The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 using the words in conjunction with the article of which they are component parts." 28. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was later upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1999 (114) ELT 778 (SC). 29. The Tribunal in the case of Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur....