Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Malaysian Airlines Vs. UOI  2010 (262) ELT 192 (Bom.)
(ii) UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008-TIOL-192-

SC-LB

(iii) Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin Vs. C.I.T. 1989 (42) ELT 350 (SC)

(iv) Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 3.3. In the case of Gemini, it was similarly held by Commissioner (Appeals) that wind mill doors cannot be considered to be part of WOEG as the doors do not take part in any way in generation of electricity by WOEG, the wind mill can function without the doors and the doors are fitted at the bottom of the tower for security and convenience only. He relied on the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. United Cable Industries reported in 2002 (14) ELT A280 in which it was held that insulated cables are not parts of wind mill. He also relied on a similar decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nicco Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE Calcatta 2006 (203) ELT 362 (S.C.). The Commissioner went on to state that the Wind Mill doors were being cleared by classifying them under CTSH 73083000 as part of a structure and, therefore it cannot be claimed by Gemini that doors are part of the wind mills. He also referred to the statement of Shrikrishna Motiram Mahajan, Managing Director of Gemini, who stated that they had paid Customs duty while importing such doors which reveals that exemption to doors was not extended by Customs.