2016 (11) TMI 1549 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - manufacture of parts and components of boiler - denial of exemption on the ground that the products manufactured and cleared by the appellants are classifiable under Heading No. 8402 90 90 and not under Heading No. 9801 - Held that - In the appellant s own case M/s. Atmasco (P) Ltd. Versus CCE & Customs, Raipur 2015 (2) TMI 830 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the exemption has been allowed to the appellant on similar goods cleared under the said notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Customs Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.
3. Applicability of earlier tribunal decisions on similar cases.

Classification of Goods under Customs Notification:
The case involved the classification of goods manufactured by the appellants under Heading No. 8402 90 90 instead of Heading No. 9801, which was crucial for availing exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The Revenue contended that the goods did not fall under the eligible category, leading to a demand of &8377; 85,29,393/- and a penalty.

Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.:
The Tribunal examined the conditions for availing exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., which required the subject goods to be exempted from customs duty when imported into India. The relevant Customs Notification, 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2006, exempted goods under Tariff Heading No. 9801 for setting up power projects of 1000 MW or above, subject to specific conditions. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and found that the appellants had been allowed exemption on similar goods in their own case and relied on precedents to set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Applicability of Earlier Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal noted that the denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. for goods supplied to Mega Power Project had been addressed in various cases. Referring to the appellant's own case and earlier tribunal decisions, including Final Order No. 54571 of 2014 and 54576 of 2014, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order. The decision was based on the consistency of rulings in similar cases and the reliance on precedents like the Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, in the absence of any representation from the appellants, analyzed the classification of goods, eligibility for exemption under the relevant notification, and the applicability of earlier tribunal decisions. Based on the precedents and consistency in rulings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.