2008 (2) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Power project - International contract - Held that - reliance placed in the case of CST LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD-I 2007 (6) TMI 369 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where The Tribunal, in the case of Automatic Electric Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 2004 (8) TMI 242 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , has held that the benefit of exemption under N/N. 108/95-C.E. is available to a sub-contractor when M/s. BHEL is the main contractor of an approved project - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 6/02 C.E. dated 1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 48/04 dated 10-9-2004.
2. Challenge regarding the acceptance of Tribunal Final Order in the department's objection.
3. Interpretation of the conditions of exemption Notification No. 48/2004 related to goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sub-contractor, supplied goods to the main contractor for an International Contract granted to set up a Mega project. The Revenue denied the benefit of Notification No. 6/02 C.E. dated 1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 48/04 dated 10-9-2004. The Bench noted that the issue was covered in the assessee's own case by Final Order No. 636 & 637/07 dated 6-6-2007 and granted full waiver, listing the matter for final hearing.

2. The department objected, stating that they did not accept the Tribunal Final Order and had filed a writ petition. The counsel argued that as there was no stay on the operation of the Tribunal Final Order, it should be applied to the current case. The Bench considered the submissions, noting that the issue was previously decided in the assessee's favor in Final Order No. 636-637/07 dated 6-6-2007. The conditions of the exemption Notification were examined, emphasizing that goods supplied to Mega Projects by sub-contractors involved in International Competitive Bidding should be considered as exempt. The Tribunal relied on precedent to support the decision, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

3. The Apex Court did not grant a stay on the operation of the impugned order, making the Bench bound by the finding in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court.