9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 298 - AT - Central ExciseExemption to all good supplied against international competitive bidding under N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - denial on the ground that the goods cleared were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading Nos. 8413 8431 whereas the above mentioned Customs Notification exempted goods under Customs Sub-heading No. 9801 - HELD THAT - In the case of SARITA STEELS INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM 2010 (7) TMI 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , it has been held that The Tribunal, in the case of AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI 2004 (8) TMI 242 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , has held that the benefit of exemption under Notification 108/95-C.E. is available to a sub-contractor when M/s. BHEL is the main contractor of an approved project. The Appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, as they have fulfilled all the conditions required to avail the said exemption. Accordingly, the demands made in the impugned order are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 2. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1.3.2002. 3. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff and Customs Tariff. 4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 The appellant, a manufacturer of P.D. Pumps and spares, claimed exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 for goods supplied to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd., C/o Jindal Power Ltd. and Udupi Poluler Corporation Ltd. The exemption is applicable for goods supplied against international competitive bidding, subject to fulfillment of condition 19 of the notification. The appellant argued that they met all conditions, supported by Project Authority's Certificates and a certificate from the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Power. Issue 2: Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1.3.2002 The appellant contended that similar goods, when imported, are exempted from Customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1.3.2002, provided a certificate from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Power, is obtained. They argued that they fulfilled these conditions, and thus, the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 should be granted. Issue 3: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff and Customs Tariff The adjudicating authority and appellate authority observed that the goods cleared were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading Nos. 8413 & 8431, whereas the Customs Notification exempted goods under Customs Sub-heading No. 9801. Additionally, there was no evidence that the goods supplied to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. were used in the power project set up by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. The appellant argued that the supply of goods to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. amounted to supply to the Raigarh Thermal Power Project by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., thus fulfilling the conditions of the notification. Issue 4: Validity of the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders A Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2007 was issued, alleging non-fulfillment of conditions for exemption. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant filed an appeal, citing previous Tribunal decisions that supported their eligibility for the exemption under similar circumstances. Conclusion: The Tribunal observed that the appellant fulfilled all conditions required for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, supported by relevant certificates and documentation. They referenced similar cases where exemptions were granted under analogous conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demands made in the impugned order were not sustainable and set aside the order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 26.06.2023.
|
