TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019 confirming the proposals made in the show cause notice. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants submits that CBEC circular no. 1008/15/2015-CX dated 20.10.2015, relied upon by the revenue, in fact supports the case of the appellant; the benefit of exemption has been given to the part consumed within the factory of production for the manufacture of specified goods; learned Commissioner has made an artificial distinction between the "part and raw material"; a common sense understanding of "part is the pieces that together with other pieces forms the whole of something"; HR plates are part towers which are intern part of WOEG. He further submits that the order/communication allowing the exemption having not been challenged, Revenue cannot issue a show cause notice. 3. He submits that Tribunal in the case of Pushpam Forging 2006 (193) ELT 334 (Tri.) held that flanges, which are used to fabricate the tower on which blades are mounted, are part of the tower which intern is part of WOEG; this decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing Civil Appeal No. D 24296 of 2005. He fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 7308. Learned Authorised representative traces the history of exemption for parts used in non conventional energy devices and submits as under * Vide Notification no. 120/1981 exemption was provided to wind mills and any specially designed devices which run on wind mills; Notification No. 205/1988 excise duty was exempted on parts manufactured and consumed within the factory. * Notification 57/1995 though exempts parts of wind mill, parts of other devices were not exempted; w.e.f. 01.03.2000 description of the exempted parts was changed "Wind Operated Electricity Generators, their components and parts thereof. * Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012 exempts nonconventional energy devices or systems, falling under any chapter, specified in list 8. * W.e.f 10.07.2014 list 8 and mentions as below: a) "(13) Wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts thereof including rotor and wind turbine controller. b) (21) Parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at S. Nos. 1 to 20." * W.e.f. 11.07.2014 a new entry under Sl. No. 332A of Notification No. 12/2012, the item 21, of list 8, was omitted. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us., Aurangabad Vs India Containers Itd. [2017 (355) E.L.T. 326 (Bom.)] * Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.)]- * Siemens Ltd. Vs Commr. Of C. Ex., Kolkata -V& II [2008 (226) E.L.T. 406 (Tri. Cal)]- * Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat I Vs Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (256) E.L.T. (369) (Guj.)]- * G Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., &Cus. Belapur [2016 (338) E.L.T. 17 (Bom.)]- 8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Brief issue involved in the case is to decide whether HR plates used by the appellants for manufacture of towers qualify to be parts of WOEG. The appellants have relied upon the case of Pushpam Forging (Supra) wherein it was held that MS flanges which were used to fabricate the tower on which the blades have been mounted, are held to be parts of the tower, which is intern part of WOEG. The contention of the Revenue, on the other hand, is that the HR plates are raw material used to manufacture towers and therefore the exemption is not available. We find that Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012 gives exemption to non-conventional energy devices or systems specified in list 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85." 11. In view of the above, it is clear that HR Plates are not parts/components of WOEG. They are neither identifiable parts of towers. Just because the towers are made by using HR sheets they do not become parts of towers. Therefore, even by assuming that parts of the part become part of the main machine, to be correct, raw material cannot be held to part of such machine. Kerala High Court has considered a similar issue in the case of Paul Lazar Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1977 (40) STC 437 held that copper wire used in manufacture of transformers is not a component part thereof; and component part has to be an identifiable object. We find that it is not the case of the appellants that the HR sheets/plates are identifiable parts or components as they cannot be separated into their original shape and size when the tower is dismantled. Tribunal in a number of decisions cited by the Revenue as well as the Counsels has discussed what would form apart/component of the main machine. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that HR plates/sheets cannot be separated are dismantled from the towers and therefore cannot be held to be parts or components of tower and thus....