9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 793 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - goods supplied to the sub-contractor - International Competitive Bidding (ICB) - whether the appellant being supplier of the goods to sub-contractor whose name is appearing in the PAC is eligible to exemption N/N. 6/2006-CE? - Held that - the issue has been clarified in the Union Budget 2014-15 according to which the supplies made to the sub-contractor is also eligible for exemption N/N. 6/2006 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE regarding duty exemption for goods supplied under International Competitive Bidding. 2. Eligibility of the appellant, a supplier to a sub-contractor, for the exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE. 3. Consistency of decisions between the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the application of the exemption notification. Issue 1: Interpretation of Exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE The case involved the interpretation of Notification No.6/2006-CE, which provides duty exemption for goods supplied under International Competitive Bidding. The appellant claimed exemption based on Project Authority Certificates (PAC) issued by project authorities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant argued that the Finance Budget 2014-15 clarified that supplies to sub-contractors were covered by the exemption notification. The Tribunal cited a previous case, Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd., where the Tribunal and the High Court upheld the exemption for goods supplied to sub-contractors under International Competitive Bidding. Issue 2: Eligibility of the Appellant for Exemption The main issue was whether the appellant, as a supplier to a sub-contractor, was eligible for the exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE. The Tribunal noted that the issue was clarified in the Union Budget 2014-15, extending the exemption to supplies made to sub-contractors. The Tribunal referenced the Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. case, where the appellant's name appeared as a sub-contractor in the PAC, satisfying the conditions of the exemption notification. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the exemption. Issue 3: Consistency of Decisions The Tribunal highlighted the consistency in decisions between the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the application of the exemption notification. In the appellant's own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty based on the exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal, based on the settled position of law and previous decisions, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the supplies made to sub-contractors were eligible for the duty exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE, based on the interpretation of the notification and consistent decisions in similar cases.
|
