ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. In this case benefit of Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988 has been denied to tempered glass on the ground that it is not covered by either SI. No. 18 or SI. No. 1 of the Table annexed thereto which was claimed by the appellants herein.
2. The notification exempts certain specified goods connected with Solar and other natural energy. SI. No. 1 covers “Flat Plate, Solar Collectors” and SI. No. 18 covers parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified and SI. Nos. 1 to 7 above (such as solar cookers, solar crop driers etc.). The assessee contends that SI. No. 18 covers goods in dispute or alternately the goods are themselves flat plate solar collectors since the essential character of flat plate solar collector is derived from the tempered glass because such glasses perform the function of collection of Solar Energy.
3. Since none appeared for the appellants in spite of notice we heard the ld. DR and perused the records and the Notification. We agree with the lower authorities that the item in dispute is not eligible to get the benefit of the Notification under SI. No. 18 since although it may be part of flat plate solar collectors, it is not consumed within the factory of production for manufacture of goods specified at SI. Nos. 1 to 17 of the Table annexed to the notification (since the appellants are admittedly not manufacturing any of the goods covered by SI. Nos. 1 to 17). SI. No. 1 of the Table to the Notification also does not cover the goods; the tempered glass for which the benefit is sought is only one of these components required for manufacture of flat plate Solar Collectors, as certified by the Principal Scientific Officer of the Department of Non-conventional Energy (Ministry of Energy), Government of India, and not complete flat plate solar collector in itself. Since the goods in dispute do not answer to the description of the goods specified against SI. No. 1 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 205/88, they are not eligible to the benefit of exemption thereunder. In the result we upheld the impugned order and reject the appeal.