CCE Vs. BOILER TECH ENGINEERS & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 3 appeals from the revenue involve the single point of coverage of exemption Notification Nos. 205/88 and 120/81. The impugned order is also the same. These three appeals are therefore, being disposed of vide this common order. We have heard Shri A. Ashokan for the revenue and Shri V.B. Joshi for the respondents.

(2.) THE language of both the notifications, in so far as they relate to the dispute on hand is the same. Under these notifications "agricultural and municipal waste conversion devices producing energy" were exempted. In each of the three appeals, the assessees claimed benefit of this exemption. In each case the Assistant Collector found that such devices viz. boilers could be used for both the fuels viz. agricultural/municipal waste as well as the conventional fuels such as coal. On this ground the benefit was denied and also differential duty was demanded and confirmed. The Collector (Appeals) examined the scope of the entry in the exemption notification. He observed that a boiler could safely be termed as a device in terms of this notification. He observed that in the earlier notification No. 120/81 the benefit was restricted to boilers which used as fuels exclusively agricultural and municipal waste. He found that the present notifications did not stipulate such exclusive inputs. He observed that the design of the boilers was such as to accept the designated waste. He distinguished functionally the conventional boilers from those using designated fuels. He observed that the Chartered Engineers after examining the constructional details of the boilers belonging to two parties were satisfied that the boilers were falling under the coverage of the notification. He further observed that design of the boiler was approved by the Chief Boiler Inspector of the State Government, who was the competent authority for the purpose of certifying the status of the boiler. He referred to Ministry's letter F. No. 156/9/92 -CX -4 dated 19.5.1992 and trade notices based thereupon issued by several Collectors and observed that in terms of this circular also, the contested devices merited the benefit. He found that the boilers were designed differently even though they had the facility of using conventional fuels. On these observations he allowed the appeals resulting in the present appeals from the revenue.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions. We have seen the subject entry in the notification and also the citations made by both sides. We will first deal with the submission made in the appeal memorandum.