TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s windmill doors or tower doors are concerned, it is a safety device which is used as security for high voltage equipments fitted inside the tower, preventing unauthorised access and preventing entries of reptiles, insects, etc., inside the tower. This, according to us, would be sufficient to make it part of the electricity generator. We further find that this was so held by the Commissioner of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv. ORDER The Respondent No. 1 herein is engaged in the manufacture of Tower and Lasttice Masts of Iron and Steel and other structures and parts of Iron and Steel fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of proviso to Section 11A of the Act inasmuch as there was no suppression or mis-statement by the respondent herein. Discussion in this behalf is contained in para 7 of the impugned judgment, operative portion whereof reads as under:- We also note that the reference to Larger Bench's decision in the case of M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is, accordingly, dismissed on this ground alone. Civil Appeal No. 5821 of 2013 The question which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether windmill doors and electrical boxes are components and/or parts of wind operated electricity generators. If the answer is in the affirmative, the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 06/2002-CE da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this was so held by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur in Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2005 as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur, vide his orders dated 10.02.2003. The said orders were accepted by the Revenue as it is recorded by the CESTAT that the Revenue could not produce any evidence to show that those orders were challenged by it. Further, since the tower i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
