TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in SKD/CKD condition or otherwise. - The respondents were not entitled to claim the benefit under Sl. No.18 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 205/88 CE on the facts of this case and, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. - E/583/2001 - 609/2008 - Dated:- 24-6-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri B.L. Meena, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- This appeal of the Revenue is against grant of the benefit of Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988 (as amended) to the respondents in respect of towers manufactured and cleared under SH 8412.90 of the CETA Schedule a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mills, bio-gas plants etc. These were listed at Sl. Nos.1 to 17 in the Table annexed to the Notification. At Sl. No.12, "windmills and any specially designed devices which run on windmills" were mentioned for the above benefit. The last item (Sl. No.18) in the said Table reads: "parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at Sl. Nos.1 to 17 above". No Tariff entry was mentioned anywhere in the Notification. May be, for this reason, the learned counsel has submitted that the dispute in this case does not relate to classification of the goods but to applicability of the Notification. Be that as it may, the appellant has classified the towers in question under SH 7308.20 for denying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case has not been brought out in so many words in the present appeal of the Revenue, it is feebly discernible from Ground No.1, whereunder towers were held to be specifically covered under Heading 7308.20, there being, a different entry for parts of windmills in the CETA Schedule. 5. The learned counsel has relied on two decisions of coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. In the case of Techno Lab. Manufacturing (supra), towers, lattice, masts etc. were held to be parts of windmill and eligible for the benefit of the above Notification. In the other case of Pushpam Forging (supra), MS forged flanges were held to be parts of windmill tower, which, in turn, was held to be part of WOEG and, on this basis, the benefit of Notification No. 6/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
