Cce, Delhi-Iv vs Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.133/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2005 dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Faridabad]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the

order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in

any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental

authorities?

__________________________________________________

CCE, Delhi-IV Appellant

Vs.

Rachitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri.R.K. Grover, DR

Present for the Respondent: Shri.B.L.Narasimhan, Advocate

Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 01/01/2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50458/2015

PER: RAKESH KUMAR

The respondent are manufacturers of chimneys which are to be used as component of the boilers for non-conventional energy system. The point of dispute is as to whether these chimneys would be eligible for duty exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. The Notification No.6/2002-CE (Sl.No.237) covers non-conventional energy devises/systems specified in list 9 and sl. No.16 of the list 9 covers Agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion device producing energy. The appellants were clearing the chimneys to M/s.ISGEC John Thompson who were manufacturing the boilers and M/s.ISGEC John Thompson were supplying the complete boiler system alongwith chimneys to the end-users. The Department being of the view that since what had been cleared by the appellant was only chimney, which is part of the non-conventional energy device and not non-conventional energy device by itself the same would not be eligible for exemption. It is on this basis that the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order in Original dated 23.03.2005 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2,49,312/- against the appellant for the period from September, 2002 to October, 2002 along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.40,000/- on the company under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30th December, 2005 allowed the appeal holding that chimney is integral attachment of the boiler and it is also to be treated as a device meant for non-conventional energy system and hence the same would be covered by the exemption notification. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. The respondent have filed a cross objection.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Shri R.K. Grover, ld. DR assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that Notification No.6/2002-CE (Sl.No.237) covers non-convensional energy devices /systems specified in list 9 covered by any chapter for full duty exemption, that Sl.No. 16 of the list 9 covers agricultural, forestry, agro industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion devices producing energy and sl No.21 of this list covers only such parts which are used/ consumed within the factory of production for the manufacture of the goods specified at sl.No.1 to 20, that the respondent are manufacturing only the chimneys while the boilers are being manufactured by M/s.ISGEC John Thompson, that the appellants were clearing chimneys to M/s.ISGEC John Thompson and M/s.ISGEC John Thompson were supplying the complete boiler system to the end users, that chimneys, though meant for the boilers for non-conventional energy producing devices are only a component and hence the same are not covered by Sl.No.16 of the list 9, that since these chimneys are not used in the Respondents factory for manufacture of complete non-conventional energy devices/systems, the same would also not be covered by sl.No.21 of the list 9 and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.

4. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocte, the ld. Counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner.

5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Sl.No.237 of the table to the Notification 6/2002-CE covers non-conventional energy devices / systems specified in list 9. Sl.No.16 of the list 9 covers agricultural, forestry, agro industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion devise producing energy. There is no dispute that the chimneys manufactured by the appellant are meant for biomass burning boilers being manufactured by M/s.ISGEC John Thompson who in turn supply such broilers to the end-users for production of energy from waste. The Commissioner (Appeals)s view is that since what is covered by Sl.No.237 of Notification No.6/2002-CE is the non-conventional energy devices/ systems and since there is very thin distinction between part and device, as the device is thing made for a particular purpose and since chimney being an integral part of the biomass fired broiler can be treated as a device for non-conventional energy devices/systems, the exemption under this Notification would be available to the chimneys. We agree with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals), as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the device is a thing made for a particular purpose and as such the chimney meant for biomass fired boiler has to be treated as non-conventional energy device.

6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is dismissed. The cross objection also stands disposed of.

[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].

(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0

5