TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed equipment and Solar energy based products falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, the appellant procured duty-free raw materials / inputs such as photovoltaic glass, solar cells, aluminium profiles, solder flux and packing materials etc. without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and indigenously in terms of Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. On the basis of audit of their records, it was pointed out that the appellant since cleared the final products manufactured by them into DTA; hence not entitled to claim benefit of exemption No.22/2003-CE and No.52/2003-Cus in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods. Consequently, 4 show-cause notices were issued during the period July 2012 to December 2014 demanding duty of Rs.1,27,59,212/- Rs.48,35,608/-; Rs.24,27,353/- and Rs.34,29,130/- with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed and penalty was imposed only in respect of the period April 2013 to September 2013 (appeal No.E/23392/2014). Hence, the present appeals. 3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has fairly submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant to DTA is covered under Sl.No.11/ 20 of the List 5 - Solar Photovoltaic Module and Panel. Sl.No.21 of the List exempts 'parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl.No.1 to 20'. Further, inputs such as Solar Photovoltaic Cells, Tedlar Sheet etc. are specifically mentioned in the list; hence, exemption was available to the appellant under Notification No.6/2006-CE. • Similarly, they are entitled to Sl.No.332 of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and no conditions are imposed for the excisable goods viz. 'non-conventional energy devises or systems' specified in the List 8. The final product of the appellant also covered under Sl.No.11 /20 of the List 8. • However, he has fairly submitted that the issue in the appellant's case has been considered by this Tribunal and the benefit of the said Notification was disallowed to the appellant vide Final Order No.20920-20921/2024 dated 27.09.2024. He has submitted that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Vs. Malwa Industries [2009(235) ELT 0214(SC)] and in Lohia Sheet Products Vs. CC [2008(22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification No.25/1999-Cus and No.24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005. Upto the period 11.07.2014, in all the orders, the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 exemption from CVD has been denied. Also, the benefit of exemption from SAD has been denied to the appellant. 8. As far as the issue relating to admissibility of benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 is concerned, this Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No.20920-20921/2024 dated 27.09.2024 following the judgements on the issue held as follows:- 9. In the present case, the appellant sought exemption on various parts procured locally as well as imported, used in the manufacture of Solar Module (non-conventional energy devices) at Sl. No.11 and 20 of the said List 5 against Sl. No.84 of List 5 of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Sl. No.21 of List 5 allows exemption to parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20 of the said List. Thus, it is very clear that the parts which are manufactured within the factory can be all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecified at serial numbers 1 to 20'. Only such parts are exempted from payment of central excise duty which within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 and not parts of water pumping station. It needs to be noted that entry number (10) of List 8 mentions 'solar power generating system' and not 'module mounting structures'. ........... 18. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the module mounting structures' should be granted exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of the notification dated 17.03.2012 and not the 'solar power generating system'. ............ 21. An exemption notification has to be strictly construed, as was observed by the Supreme Court in Commnr. of Customs (import), Mumbai versus M/s. Dilip Kumar and Ors. 2016 (5) TMI 185 - Supreme Court = 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CBand in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2015 (324) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) = 2015-TIOL-236-SC-CX. 22. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bservations made by this Court in District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co., (2001) 7 SCC 358, may be noticed : "... A statute is an edict of the Legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary, to seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of them that make it and the duty of the Court is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature. This task very often raises the difficulties because of various reasons, inasmuch as the words used may not be scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning and the language may be an imperfect medium to convey one's thought or that the assembly of Legislatures consisting of persons of various shades of opinion purport to convey a meaning which may be obscure. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. Nonetheless, the function of the Courts is only to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, if the plain construction leads to anomaly and absurdity, the Court having regard to the hardship and consequences that flow from such a provision can even explain the true intention of the legislation. Having observed general principles applicable to statutory interpretation, it is now time to consider rules of interpretation with respect to taxation." Summarising the principles of interpretation, their Lordships observed at para 52 as: "52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under - ( 1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled." 13. Following the consistent view of this Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-EOU executes a bond covering the duty on the imported goods. In both cases, the EOU as well as the non-EOU maintain a proper account of the goods imported, its utilization and balance in stock is maintained which is subject to verification by the Customs authorities or the Central Excise officer respectively. Further, in the case of both EOU and non-EOU, monthly returns are filed with the Central Excise Officer. Therefore, it is evident from the above that procedures followed by the EOU assessee are similar to the procedures followed by Non-EOUS under the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the assessee had failed to comply with any of the procedural requirements required for the duty free imports by the EOU. Further, there is no dispute about the duty free imported goods being received and used in the manufacture of Solar modules. Therefore, when substantial compliance to the essence of the conditions of the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules have been complied with, I hold that the assessee are eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification No 25/99-Cus dated 28-02-1999 and No 24/2005-Cus dated 01-03-2005. 42. This position has been ....