CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi ~~~~~

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 3 Excise Appeal No. 50762 of 2020 [Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 01/Pr. Commr/CEX/UJN/2019-20 dated

23.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain]

Inox Wind Limited : Appellant (s)

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Tripathi, Inox Tower, Plot No. 17, Noida Sector-16A, Noida, U.P. 201301 Vs Principal Commissioner, CGST &

Central Excise-Ujjain : Respondent (s)

29, Bharatpuri Administrative Area, Ujjain, M.P. 456010 APPEARANCE:

Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ranjan Prakash and Shri Shiv Shankar, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50887/2025 Date of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025 P.ANJANI KUMAR:

The appellants M/s Inox Wind Limited are engaged in the manufacture of Wind Operated Electricity Generator (WOEG); the appellants procured HR plates availing exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE claiming the same to be parts of WOEG; the appellants sent the HR plates for job work to manufacture towers. On conduct of an audit, Revenue was the opinion that the said exemption is applicable only parts of WOEG and not to the raw material which is used in manufacture of parts. A show cause notice dated 24.04.2019 was issued to the appellants demanding Central Excise Duty, foregone on the HR plates, of Rs. 5,64,35,092 along with equal interest and penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019 confirming the proposals made in the show cause notice. Hence, this appeal.

2. Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants submits that CBEC circular no. 1008/15/2015-CX dated 20.10.2015, relied upon by the revenue, in fact supports the case of the appellant; the benefit of exemption has been given to the part consumed within the factory of production for the manufacture of specified goods; learned Commissioner has made an artificial distinction between the “part and raw material”; a common sense understanding of “part is the pieces that together with other pieces forms the whole of something”; HR plates are part towers which are intern part of WOEG. He further submits that the order/communication allowing the exemption having not been challenged, Revenue cannot issue a show cause notice.

3. He submits that Tribunal in the case of Pushpam Forging 2006 (193) ELT 334 (Tri.) held that flanges, which are used to fabricate the tower on which blades are mounted, are part of the tower which intern is part of WOEG; this decision was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dismissing Civil Appeal No. D 24296 of 2005. He further submits that Tribunal in the case of Technofab Manufacturing Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 515 (Tri. Kol.) held that Nacelle Body, towers, lattice, mars are nothing but parts of windmill which cannot be erected and positioned without these parts; Tribunal also held in Gemini Introtech 2017 (357) ELT 823 that anchor rings are eligible for exemption as parts of WOEG and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the same in Rakhoh Enterprises 2018 (360) ELT A180 (SC), while upholding the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rakhoh Enterprises 2016 (338) ELT 449 (Tribunal-LB) wherein, it was held that “Windmill Doors” are eligible for exemption; Tribunal in the case of SKF India Ltd. 2023 2 Centax 131 (Tribunal) held that bearings manufactured and used for WOEG are eligible for exemption. He further relies on the following judgments:

 Laxmi Boilers vs. CCE 2001(138) ELT 1189 (Tribunal)

 Jotun India Private Limited vs. CCE 2024(11) TMI 1179-CESTAT-

MUMBAI  Phenix Construction Technology vs. CCE 2017(358) ELT 241 (Tri-Ahmd.)

 Barga India Private Limited vs. CCE 2023(7) TMI 428-CESTAT-

CHENNAI  Fag Bearings India Ltd. vs. CCE 2019(1) 247-CESTAT-

AHMEDABAD  CCE vs. Pearl Insulation Pvt. Ltd. 2024(4) TMI 625-CESTAT BANGLORE  CCE vs. Pushpaman Forgings 2017(