9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1774 - AT - Central ExciseSupply of instrumental cables to Mega Thermal Power Plant being set up by M/s. NTPC and M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. - Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - period of dispute is April, 2007 to December, 2010 - covered by project import concession or not? - Held that - The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR-I 2016 (7) TMI 1221 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was 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 N/N. 6/2006 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Disallowance of duty exemption claimed by assessee under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. - Requirement of additional certificate for exemption claim. - Interpretation of Project Import Regulation applicability. - Classification of goods under Chapter 85 of the Tariff. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal Nos. 65(SLM)CE/JPR/2015 and 66-69(SLM)CE/JPR/2015, concerning the disallowance of duty exemption claimed by the assessee under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The period of dispute was April 2007 to December 2010. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of insulated wire and cables under Chapter Heading 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute arose when the assessee supplied instrumental cables to a Mega Thermal Power Plant and claimed duty exemption, which was initially disallowed by the adjudicating authority but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The main contention raised by the Revenue was the requirement of an additional certificate for the exemption claim. The Revenue argued that a certificate from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was necessary, apart from the one issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Power. The Revenue relied on a previous case related to project import concession for spares and accessories, but the Tribunal noted that the present case involved domestic consumption, not import concession, making the cited ratio inapplicable. 3. The issue of the applicability of Project Import Regulation was also discussed. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the denial of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 was based on non-fulfillment of Project Import Regulation conditions. However, in the current case, since the goods were classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Tariff and not under Chapter 98.01, the denial of exemption for non-fulfillment of Project Import Regulation conditions was deemed unsustainable. 4. The classification of goods under Chapter 85 of the Tariff was crucial in determining the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006. The Tribunal cited a case where similar submissions were made by the Revenue for denying exemption under the same notification, but the Tribunal allowed the exemption based on the classification of goods and fulfillment of conditions specified in the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, citing previous decisions and finding no reason to interfere with the same. 5. In conclusion, both appeals filed by the department were dismissed, and the impugned orders allowing the duty exemption to the assessee were sustained based on the classification of goods under Chapter 85 and the fulfillment of conditions specified in the relevant notifications.
|
