2016 (9) TMI 1126 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 read with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 - availment of benefit - supply of electric wires and cables under international competitive bidding to various thermal power plants without payment of duty - exemption denied on the ground that classification against Sl. No. 400 in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. is indicated as 9801 whereas the wires and cables manufactured and cleared by the appellants are classifiable under CETH 8544. Held that - in view of the various decisions of Tribunal in the case of Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 2010 (7) TMI 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , in the case of Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 vs. CCE &ST, Jaipur 2013 (11) TMI 1361 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and in the case of Paramount Communications Limited 2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it was held that the denial of exemption on the ground of classification shown under Customs Notification is 9801 is not sustainable, it is clear that the denial of the exemption to the appellant is not legally sustainable. Admittedly, the condition stipulated for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE has been fulfilled by the appellant except for the classification in column-2 of Entry No. 400 in Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. As clearly noted, the classification 9801 is not available in Central Excise Tariff and the same relates to project import, as such the denial of exemption on this grounds is legally not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Classification under Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. vs. Central Excise Tariff, Denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, Interpretation of condition No. 19, Legal sustainability of exemption denial.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, concerning the denial of exemption availed by the appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric wires and cables, under Notification No. 6/2006 read with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellant supplied dutiable items to thermal power plants under international competitive bidding without paying duty. The Revenue objected to the exemption, citing a mismatch in classification under Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (9801) and the actual classification of the goods under CETH 8544. The Commissioner confirmed a Central Excise demand of ?3,60,45,825, but did not impose a penalty.

The appellant argued that the exemption required goods supplied under international competitive bidding to be exempted from customs duties under the Customs Tariff Act, fulfilled by the appellant as they supplied only to mega power projects with proper certificates. The appellant contended that the classification under customs notification referred to project imports based on usage, not nature, citing precedents like Paramount Communication Ltd. The Revenue contended that since the goods did not fall under Chapter 9801 of the Customs Tariff, the exemption was inapplicable and should be strictly construed.

The Tribunal examined previous cases like Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd., Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2, Paramount Communications Limited, and KEI Industries Limited, where it was held that goods required for mega power projects were exempt under the customs notification despite the absence of a corresponding heading in the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal found the denial of exemption to the appellant legally unsustainable since the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE were met, except for the classification discrepancy, which was not available in the Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the legal sustainability of exemption denial, highlighting the importance of fulfilling conditions for exemption under relevant notifications and interpreting classification discrepancies between customs and excise tariffs. The judgment provided clarity on the applicability of exemptions for goods supplied under international competitive bidding to mega power projects, based on usage and fulfillment of specified conditions, ultimately allowing the appeal and overturning the Commissioner's order.