Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1155 - AT - Central ExciseExemption from Central Excise Duty - module mounting structures - supplied to suppliers of solar power water pumping systems for irrigating agriculture fields - eligibility for benefit of notification dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT:- The Principal Commissioner has rightly concluded that the serial number 10 of List 8 refers to ‘solar power generating system’ and not to ‘module mounting structures’ manufactured by the appellant and only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 are exempted from payment of central excise duty. The Principal Commissioner has also correctly appreciated the effect of the amendment made on 11.07.2014 to the aforesaid notification dated 17.03.2012. According to the Principal Commissioner, prior to the amendment only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 were exempted, but after the said amendment the exemption is also available to parts of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 in a situation where it is consumed not only within the factory of production for the manufacture of goods specified in List 8 but also when used elsewhere than in the factory of production, subject of course to the condition that the procedure laid down in the relevant rules has been followed - It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the ‘module mounting structures’ should be granted exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of the notification dated 17.03.2012 and not the ‘solar power generating system’. An exemption notification has to be strictly construed, as was observed by the Supreme Court in COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND ORS [2016 (5) TMI 185 - SUPREME COURT] and in M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANOTHER, ECC CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT] - The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant between ‘devices’ and ‘systems’ is not of relevance to the present case because both non-conventional energy devices or systems specified in List 8 are covered by the description of excisable goods. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner - Appeal dismissed.
|