9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 79 - AT - Central ExciseSupply against International Competitive Bidding - benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - denial on the ground that exemption was available only to M/s. VA-Tech Wabag Ltd., as they were the actual bidders and there was no certificate issued by any authority to the effect that the goods supplied by the appellant to M/s. The Eimco-KCP Ltd. were for use in International Competitive Bidding mega project - Held that - The respondents have supplied the goods for water treatment plant for human consumption and the only ground for disallowing the benefit of Notification 6/2006 is that the respondents who is a sub-contractor has not participated in the International Competitive Bidding. It is not disputed that M/s. VA-Tech Wabag Ltd. have participated in the International Competitive Bidding. The issue as to whether the respondents themselves have to take part in the bidding has been settled in the case of Toshniwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that exemption cannot be denied for the reason that sub-contractor did not take part in International Competitive Bidding. Benefit of exemption cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE for supply against International Competitive Bidding. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption The case involved the respondents engaged in the manufacture of filtration equipment under CETSH 84212190 of CETA, 1985. The department found that the respondents cleared filtration equipment without duty payment, claiming exemption under Sl. No. 91 of Notification No.6/2006-CE for supply against International Competitive Bidding. The department contended that the exemption was available only to a specific bidder, M/s. VA-Tech Wabag Ltd., as they were the actual bidders. The adjudicating authority initially denied the exemption and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later observed that the respondents were eligible for the exemption and set aside the demand, interest, and penalties. The department appealed this decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of Conditions The respondent argued that although they were not direct participants in the International Competitive Bidding, M/s. VA-Tech Wabag Ltd. had participated, and the project authorities had issued a certificate to them. The respondent claimed to be a sub-contractor based on the certificate issued by the project authority, thus satisfying Condition 19 of the Notification. The respondent cited various cases to support their argument, emphasizing that the goods supplied were for a water treatment plant for human consumption. The Tribunal reviewed the precedents and concluded that it was not necessary for the manufacturer supplying goods to mega projects to have participated in the bidding, as long as the goods were supplied to the contract awarded to a bidding participant and installed at the project site. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the precedent cited and dismissed the department's appeal. Final Decision: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal. The Tribunal found that the exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE was applicable to the respondents, as they had supplied goods for a project where the main contractor had participated in the International Competitive Bidding. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant conditions and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
