Crompton Greaves Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.E/90/07

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.RKR(159)90/2006 dated 27/10/2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Crompton Greaves Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Aurangabad

Appearance: Shri.Nitin Mehta, Consultant for appellant Shri.H.M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 28/09/2015 Date of Decision : /2015

ORDER NO

Per: Raju

1. The appellant, M/s.Crompton Greaves Ltd., were clearing electric motors at Nil rate of duty under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002. Vide Entry No.237 of said notification non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in list No.9, falling in any chapter were exempted from Central Excise duty. The said electric motors were being supplied to customers who availed the benefit of various schemes of the Government of India, which were using non-conventional energy. There is no separate heading for non-conventional energy. Sl.No.16 of the list No.9 of the notification No.6/2002-CE reads as under:

Agricultural, forestry, Agro-industrial, industrial, Municipal & Urban waste conversion device producing energy.

Serial No.21 of the said notification also reads as follows:

Parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl.No.1 to 19 above.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demands holding that the exemption at Sl.No.237 of List No.9 is for non-conventional energy device/system specified in list No.9 . The list No.9 describes the item as agricultural, forestry, agro industrial, Municipal and Urban waste conversion device producing energy. He also observed that the appellants have already admitted that motors are not providing any non-conventional energy as specified in the exemption notification. On the above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that motors supplied by them were as per the certificate given by the authorities who have been authorised to implement the project of the non-conventional energy producing devices. He asserted that the customers of the appellant have clearly indicated that the said motors are a component and accessories which form the part of the said devices and without the motors the said energy producing devices will not function. The appellant also asserted that it is a matter of interpretation and the penalty has been wrongly imposed. Learned Counsel also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pushpam Forging Vs. CCE, Raigad  2006 (193) ELT 334 (Tri-Mum).

4. We have gone through the rival submissions.

5. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pushpam Forging deals with the entry in the said notification which reads as follows:

Sl.No.13 of list 5. WOEG, their components and parts thereof It is seen that this entry is significantly different from the entry at Sl.No.16 of list No.9 which reads as under:

Agricultural, forestry, Agro-industrial, industrial, Municipal & Urban waste conversion device producing energy.

6. It is seen that the entry discussed in the decision oof this Tribunal is specifically covered the components and parts whereas the entry in the current case does not cover the components and parts specifically.

7. In view of the above, the decision of Pushpam Forgings is not applicable to the current case. The motor is by definition, a device that conversion of electric energy into mechanical energy. It does not convert agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, Municipal & Urban waste into energy. It is not a energy producing device by any stretch of imagination. Thus, it would not be covered under Sl.No.16 of list No.9 of notification No.6/2002-CE.

8. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

(Pronounced in Court on ..)

(Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical)

pj

1 2

Appeal No.E/90/07