2014 (12) TMI 581 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 - appellant as sub-contractor and that the contract is awarded under ICB Procedure. - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2014 (2) TMI 633 - CESTAT MUMBAI - appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand confirmation against the appellant by denying the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006.
- Interpretation of the requirement of essentiality certificate under Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal confirming a duty demand of &8377; 45,154/- against the appellant, M/s KOSO India Pvt. Ltd., for supplying Globe Control Valves as a sub-contractor to specific entities involved in petroleum operations. The denial of benefit under Notification No. 6/2006 was the primary issue. The lower appellate authority rejected the benefit citing the absence of an essentiality certificate from the Directorate General of Hydro Carbons (DGHS) as mandated by Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002.

2. The appellant contended that a previous tribunal order in their case (Order No. A/983-984/13/EB/C-II dated 8.11.2013) established their eligibility for the Notification No. 6/2006 benefit. The tribunal in the previous case had clarified that the essentiality certificate requirement applied only to importers, not to subcontractors like the appellant. The appellant urged the extension of this benefit to the present case as well, emphasizing consistency in tribunal decisions.

3. The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue corroborated the factual background presented by the appellant. The tribunal, led by P R Chandrasekharan, referred to its previous decision on 8.11.2013 and upheld the appellant's eligibility for the Notification No. 6/2006 benefit. By aligning with the precedent set in the appellant's prior case, the tribunal allowed the appeal, thereby overturning the duty demand confirmation based on the denial of the notification's benefit.

4. The judgment, pronounced in court, emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in legal interpretations and application of notifications. The tribunal's decision highlighted the distinction between importers and subcontractors concerning the essentiality certificate requirement, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the Notification No. 6/2006 benefit. This comprehensive analysis resolved the issues raised in the appeal and provided clarity on the applicability of relevant notifications in similar contexts.