2018 (1) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1.2.2006 - denial on the ground that the conditions laid in the Notification in respect of the certificate as required under definition has not been complied with - whether the appellant has furnished the required certificate? - Held that - As seen from the N/N. 49/2006-Cus. dated 28.5.2006, the said condition under Sl. No. 86 has been substituted by providing with the requirement as producing a certificate that the power purchasing State undertakes to privatize distribution in all cities in that State. The appellant has produced the certificate issued by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India to this effect - it is very much clear that the appellant has satisfied the requirement of the certificate as per the notification. Whether the goods have been supplied under International Competitive Bidding to M/s. BHEL? - Held that - the issue has been settled in the case of CST Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2008 (2) TMI 755 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , wherein it has been held that goods supplied by sub-contractor to main contractor who has executed mega power project to International Competitive Bidding was also eligible for benefit of exemption 6/2000. The denial of exemption is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant has furnished the required certificate as per the exemption notification.
2. Whether the goods were supplied under International Competitive Bidding to the specified entity.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around whether the appellant complied with the requirement of furnishing a certificate as per the exemption notification. The appellant produced a certificate issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, certifying that the power purchasing State undertakes to privatize distribution in all cities in the State. The Tribunal found that the appellant satisfied this condition as per the notification, thus meeting the certificate requirement.

2. The second issue concerns whether the goods were supplied under International Competitive Bidding to the specified entity. The appellant argued that supplying goods to a sub-contractor, in this case, M/s. BHEL, should be considered as supplying against International Competitive Bidding. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and concluded that goods supplied by a sub-contractor to the main contractor executing a mega power project under International Competitive Bidding were eligible for the exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the denial of exemption was unjustified. The original authority had thoroughly discussed and ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Consequently, the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.