TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horises the imposition of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on goods described as "Castings for wind operated electricity generators, whether or not machined, in raw, finished or sub-assembled form, or as a part of a sub-assembly, or as a part of an equipment/ component meant for wind-operated electricity generators" falling under Customs Tariff Items 8483 4000, 8503 0010 or 8503 0090. 4. A provisional assessment was made under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 levying CVD. Clearance was allowed on the basis of a Bank Guarantee for a value of 50% of the CVD so levied. 5. This provisional assessment was challenged in Appeal under Section 128. In the Appeal, it was the contention of the Respondent-importer that the Notification covers castings imported in the name of component for WOEG or as a part of a sub-assembly and that, therefore, the emphasis was on 'castings'. It was therefore contended that it would not be correct to apply this Notification for Wind Operated Generators that are covered under the Heading 8503 0090. It was contended that 'castings of the parts' falling under the tariff items 8503 0010 and 8503 9000 were covered under the Heading 8503 as per as per the Explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered the question of whether the imported goods could be split or vivisected into 'castings' and 'parts' which were not 'castings' so as to impose CVD on the 'castings alone'. He held that this could not be done. He held that an item which had become a distinct and separate product would have undergone a metamorphosis with many value additions. He further held that the value of the casting would be subsumed in the value of the resulting item. He also took the view that Section 14 of the Act read with the Valuation Rules did not envisage splitting the value of a complete item into the value of its components. For these and other reasons, the Commissioner held that the parts could not be vivisected to subject only the castings to CVD. 7. The Revenue impugns this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before us. 8. Ld. AR for the Revenue has advanced a preliminary argument which we consider first. She would submit that as the goods were assessed only provisionally under section 18, the issue could not be said to have attended finality, and it was premature for the Commissioner (Appeals) to have entertained the Appeal. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention. Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner (Appeals) and reiterated the arguments urged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 13. At the outset, we deal with the reliance placed by the learned AR on the order in Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association (supra). That was an Appeal challenging the very imposition of CVD by the aforesaid notification by the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD). What was being considered by this Tribunal in that case was whether the requirements for the imposition of such a duty had been satisfied and whether, therefore, the duty imposed was valid. The question as to the nature of the goods under consideration or whether a particular item fell within or without the scope of the CVD notification was not considered by the Larger Bench at all. Therefore, this case is distinguishable and does not assist the submission of the Appellant-Revenue. 14. In its Notification dated November 27, 2015, the DGAD has considered the nature of the castings. It was observed therein that the basic function of a casting was in a wind turbine. It was observed that once a raw casting had been made, it underwent multiple machining operations. It was obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification, had the CVD Notification not been phrased in any other manner, the levy of duty could have been easily avoided merely by fixing the castings as parts in other equipment. 17. The Commissioner first observed that the goods under import were not mere castings. This is true. Much more than castings were imported. However, castings were imported too. They were imported as parts of other components. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate this. Next, the Commissioner holds that what was envisaged was not a duty on items that were distinct products which were parts of the WOEG. This is correct too. However, once again, duty in this case, in our opinion, cannot be levied on the equipment or the component as a whole, but only on the castings which form parts thereof. 18. We also disapprove of the finding of the Commissioner on the import of the word "as". We are reminded of the following words of Krishna lyer J. in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1980] 120 ITR 46 (SC): "Why, then, should legalist be allowed to play this linguistic distortion?.. The signification of a word of plural semantic shades may, in a given text, depend on the pressure of the context or other indicia.....