TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C of the Act, besides a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed on Shri Maharajkar (appellant No. 2). The period involved is from 16-3-95 to Nov. 1998. The larger period was invoked for demanding the duty from 16-3-95 to 9-2-98 for the first demand. 2. The appellants are claiming the concessional rate of duty available under Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-88 as amended by notification 57/95-C.E. The appellants are placing reliance on the order of the Board issued from F.No. 156/9/92-CX. 4, dated 19-5-92 under Section 37B whereunder it has been communicated that clearance of Fluidised Bed Combustion Boiler (FBEB) generally cleared in unassembled or disassembled condition are to be granted benefit of exemption Notification No. 205/88....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. Commissioner held that the parts/components sub-assemblies manufactured and cleared by the appellant did not form a complete hydraulic turbines at the time of the clearance. The despatch comprised of several consignments and did not occur in one consignment. The same cannot be considered as clearance of CKD/SKD turbines and hence they are to be classified as parts of hydraulic turbines classifiable in 8410.90 of the Tariff. It is also observed by the adjudicating authority that, prior to 16-3-95, the party was describing the product as "hydraulic turbines component" and then changed their description as "hydraulic turbine of capacity less than 15MW". The change in nomenclature was made to take illegally the benefits of the Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied together. In the appellant's own case on this very issue, the CEGAT bench vide their decision reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 781 (Tri. - Del.) has concurred that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Flat Products (supra) and differed with the judgment of the bench in the case of Space Age Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 544 (T). 6. We note that the matter can be decided without going into the controversy of conflicting decisions of the coordinate benches. The dispute does not relate to the classification of the impugned goods. The issue relates to extension of exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 57/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 available to turbines f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of Notification No. 205/88-CE or its predecessor Notification No. 120/81-C.E., dated 15-5-1981 have to be administered. The Commissioner in his order after referring to the said 37B order is holding that, the components/assemblies manufactured and cleared by their party did not form a complete hydraulic turbine either in a knocked down/unassembled or disassembled condition at the time of clearance (emphasis ours). This reading of the instruction is totally misplaced. The fact that the components/sub-assemblies have to be removed in different convoys and not in a single convoy is a practical reality. It is not possible for anyone to remove all components/parts and sub-assemblies together in one single convoy, leave alone in a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of turbines in CKD/SKD condition." 7. It is an established law that the instruction of the Board are binding on the authorities functioning under the Board. The instructions very clearly lay down the guidelines that :- (1) Evidence is produced that the goods cleared (emphasis ours) form part of a complete device, and the evidence is also produced for supply of such a device to the buyer and the said goods is designed for the use in the conversion of municipal waste for producing energy. (Section 37B Order No. 4/92, dated 19-5-92) 7.1 Similar mandate is also provided in the 37B Order No. 35/11/94, dated 7-9-94 in respect of pollution control equipment. 8. There is no dispute or contrary evidence to show that the components/as....