[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein, M/s. NICCO Corporation Ltd. are a manufacturer of ‘Insulated Wires & Cables’ classifiable under heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. The moot point in the appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 205/88-C.E. dated 25-5-1988 in respect of the Wires and Cables removed by them during the period - August and September, 1995 - to M/s. VESTUS RRB India Ltd., Madras, as parts of wind mills, whereas the appellants' contention is that the said power cable is a part of wind mill, thus entitled to the benefit of the Notification in question. Revenue's contention is that the same are only general purpose power cable and cannot earn the benefit of the Notification as a part of the wind mill.
3. We have heard Shri B.J. Mookherjee, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR for the Revenue.
4. Notification No. 205/88 grants exemption to certain specified goods connected with solar and other natural energy. Against Serial No. 12, wind mills, parts of wind mills and any specially designed devices which run on wind mills, are specified. The appellants claimed that the power cables in question are covered by parts of wind mills. The technical literature produced on record by the appellants specified the cables against Serial No. 6. It is mentioned therein that WEG is equipped with necessary and sufficient wires and cables for connecting to the WEG’s Control Unit at the base of the tower. The public grid cables etc. are connected to the controller’s outlets and are not included in the VESTAS delivery. Shri Mookherjee, learned Advocate has relied upon a certificate given by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IX, Madras, IX Division, mentioning power cables amongst parts of wind mills. However, we find that the said letter of the Superintendent, Madras cannot have an effect of expanding the scope of the expression, 'parts'. The appellants have in their reply to the notice stated that the instant cables were used between NACELLE of the control panel for the purpose of transmitting the power from the generator to the control panel. However, they have also stated that this power cable was specially designed to serve specific purpose. The cable had flexible conductor of Annealed Timed Copper Wire, Elastomer Insulated, having excellent electrical, physical and flexing properties and other specialities. However, we find that the above properties enumerated by the appellants do not make the cable the type of cable which can only be used with the wind mills and cannot be used anywhere else. However, merely because the cables are in cut-piece and not in running length will not make them anything else than cables. Admittedly, these cables were used for convecting the mill with the generator where electricity was generated and for the purposes of transmission of power from generator to control panel where voltage was actually controlled. As such, we fully agree with the findings of the lower authorities that the cables in question, performing the normal function of the cables cannot qualify as parts of wind mills.
5. The appellants have referred to the decision in the case of Delton Cables reported in [ (Tribunal) = 1998 (24) RLT 727], wherein it was held that annealed cords fitted with terminal (used between receiver and telephone operators) were classifiable as parts of telephone operators and not as wires and cables. However, we find that the said decision is not applicable inasmuch as the facts were quite different in that case. The appellants have nowhere shown and proved that the wires and cables in question were specifically designed for use as parts in the wind mills and were incapable of being used anywhere else.
6. The appellants have also placed reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Mumbai-II reported in [ (Tribunal) = 1998 (79) ECR 207 (T)] wherein power cables imported by the appellants have been held to be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E., being a part of wind mill. However, it is seen on careful reading of the said judgment that the power cables in that case were cut to specific sizes and have end-fittings and it was observed by the Bench that power cables and control cables together form part of inside cabling of the wind turbine controller. It was, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal held the power cables to be entitled to the benefit of the Notification. However, we find that all these detailed specifications and the use of the power cables in the wind mill is neither before us nor was before the Commissioner. We also note that the said decision of the Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. was considered by the Tribunal in the case of United Cable Indus. v. CCE, Meerut - [2000 (119) E.L.T 668 (Tribunal) = 2000 (40) RLT 38 (CEGAT)]. The Tribunal observed as under :-
“The case law relied upon by the ld. Consultant namely the Tribunal decision in the case of Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai-II reported in (T) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case power cables were cut to specific sizes and were fitted with end fittings which were connected to the induction generator in the Nacelle and they were performing dual function of transforming power to elsewhere and drawing reaction power for excitation. Further, the importer produced a certificate from the Research and Development Centre of M/s. Turbowinds, Brussels, to the effect that one Wind Turbine Controller which is also termed as an electrical regulation cabinet, comprises, inter alia, inside cabling which includes the cable between lower base and the Nacelle which is split into power cables and control cables. In the present case the Appellants have not been able to establish that the cables manufactured by them are identifiable parts of the wind mill and therefore the benefit of exemption Notification is not available to them.”
We find that the similar situation existed in the present case also. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that wires and cables in question cannot be considered as parts of wind mills and the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the appellants. The appeal is accordingly rejected.