By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN, 06, 2017: THE CCE, Pune-I confirmed a CE duty demand of Rs.5.36 crores by holding that Anchor rings and load spreading plates are not parts of Wind-Operated Electricity Generator (WOEG) & thus denying the benefit of Notification 6/2006-CE.

The Tribunal ordered pre-deposit of 25% of the duty demanded. See -  2013-TIOL-2032-CESTAT-MUM.

The Bombay High Court did not interfere with this order but granted more time to make pre-deposit. See - 2014-TIOL-288-HC-MUM-CX.

A similar claim of exemption was also denied to another assessee [Gemini Instratech] by CCE, Nasik, who was manufacturing Tower Doors [duty involved Rs.1.03 crores]

Since in their case the benefit of exemption was extended earlier by Tribunal as reported in 2013-TIOL-738-CESTAT-MUM, the Division Bench felt it prudent to refer the matter to the Larger Bench as it did not concur with the view taken earlier.

See  2014-TIOL-2110-CESTAT-MUM.

Incidentally, the appeal by the first referred appellant was rejected by denying the benefit of exemption to Anchor rings and load spreading plates.

This lead to issuance of a corrigendum order - 2015-TIOL-137-CESTAT-MUM.

ROM application was filed by the first appellant [Rakhoh Enterprises] but that was dismissed as -  2015-TIOL-942-CESTAT-MUM 

A Writ Petition came to be filed against this order.

The High Court while quashing the Tribunal order observed that since the appeal involved a similar question and issue, the matter of the petitioner ought to have been also referred for decision by a Larger Bench.

See -  2015-TIOL-2086-HC-MUM-CX .

The Larger Bench - 2016-TIOL-1671-CESTAT-MUM-LB extracted the findings of the Supreme Court - 2015-TIOL-322-SC-CX and observed that in view of the same, Windmill doors/Tower doors are entitled to exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006, as parts of windmills.

As for the entitlement of exemption in respect of anchor rings and load spreading plates, the Larger Bench - 2016-TIOL-1671-CESTAT-MUM-LB viewed that the same are specifically designed for the purpose of attaching the tower to the ground by providing necessary bolts for the same and being an extension of the tower, though the same is fixed to the foundation first and later attached to the tower, they are parts of the tower and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01/03/2006.

The referral Bench noted the Larger Bench decision (supra) and accordingly set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by M/s Rakhoh Enterprises and M/s Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd.

(See 2017-TIOL-58-CESTAT-MUM)