2016 (7) TMI 1221 - AT - Central Excise

Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - benefit of exemption - supply of instrumental cables to Mega Thermal Power plant being set up by M/s NTPC and M/s Jindal Power Ltd. - Demand - Held that - an identical dispute was the subject matter of recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Paramount Communication Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it was held that appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006. Therefore, by following the same, we set-aside the impugned order. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of exemption benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for supply of instrumental cables to Mega Thermal Power plant.
2. Confirmation of duty demand due to non-fulfillment of Project Import Regulation for goods classifiable under Chapter 85 of the tariff.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing insulated wire and cables, supplied instrumental cables to Mega Thermal Power plants and claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The original adjudicating authority disallowed the benefit, leading to the appeal. The demand of duty amounting to &8377; 1,92,39,496 was confirmed against the appellant based on the argument that the exemption under Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002 could not be extended to wires and cables under Chapter 85 due to non-compliance with Project Import Regulation, 1986.

2. The Tribunal referred to a recent decision in the case of M/s Paramount Communication Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, where a similar issue was addressed. It was observed that goods classified under Chapter 85 of the Tariff could not be categorized under 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. Denial of exemption based on non-fulfillment of Project Import Regulation conditions was deemed unsustainable. Citing precedents like Sarita Steel and Industries Ltd., and Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 cases, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, emphasizing that the denial of benefits based on non-compliance with Project Import Regulation for goods classified under Chapter 85 was not justified. The decision aligned with precedents and established principles, leading to the setting aside of the original order and granting relief to the appellant.