G.B.Engineering Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/943662
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnOct-13-2009
Case NumberAppeal No.E/1041 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantG.B.Engineering Enterprises Private Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Advocates:Shri R.Masillamoney, Consultant. Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR
Excerpt:
per jyoti balasundaram vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has held that towers for windmills manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under cet sub heading 7308.20, rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification under cet sub heading 8412.00, and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of notification no.205/88 dt. 25.5.88, for the reason that during the period in dispute viz. sept.-94 to jan 95, parts of windmills were not covered under the notification and they can enjoy the benefit of exemption only w.e.f. 16.3.95. 2. we have heard both sides. cet sub heading 73.08 covers structures and parts of structures (for example, bridges towers ) of iron and steel. towers and lattice masts are specifically covered under cet sub heading 7308.20 attracting duty @ 15%. rival entry chapter heading 84.12 covers other engines and motors and this heading carried a rate of 10% adv. during the relevant time. chapter heading 73.08 is specific for towers and lattice masts, while the heading claimed by the assessees is a residuary heading. further, there is no exclusion of any type of tower or any kind of tower from coverage under chapter heading 73.08. since the goods are specifically covered under cet sub heading 7308.20, they have been rightly held to fall for classification under the above heading. as regards the benefit of notification no.205/88, there is no dispute that such benefit is not available as during the relevant period, only complete windmills were covered under sl.no.12 of notification and sl.no.12 was expanded to include parts of windmills only from 16.3.95. 3. in the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Judgment:

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has held that towers for windmills manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under CET Sub Heading 7308.20, rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification under CET Sub Heading 8412.00, and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.205/88 dt. 25.5.88, for the reason that during the period in dispute viz. Sept.-94 to Jan 95, parts of windmills were not covered under the notification and they can enjoy the benefit of exemption only w.e.f. 16.3.95.

2. We have heard both sides. CET Sub Heading 73.08 covers Structures and parts of structures (for example, bridges towers ) of iron and steel. Towers and Lattice Masts are specifically covered under CET Sub Heading 7308.20 attracting duty @ 15%. Rival entry Chapter Heading 84.12 covers Other engines and motors and this heading carried a rate of 10% adv. during the relevant time. Chapter Heading 73.08 is specific for Towers and Lattice Masts, while the heading claimed by the assessees is a residuary heading. Further, there is no exclusion of any type of tower or any kind of tower from coverage under Chapter Heading 73.08. Since the goods are specifically covered under CET Sub Heading 7308.20, they have been rightly held to fall for classification under the above heading. As regards the benefit of Notification No.205/88, there is no dispute that such benefit is not available as during the relevant period, only complete windmills were covered under Sl.No.12 of Notification and Sl.No.12 was expanded to include parts of windmills only from 16.3.95.

3. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.