9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 438 - AT - Central ExciseSupply of goods to different power projects against international competitive biddings by the clearing the goods without payment of duty - Denial of benefit of exemption N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - HELD THAT - The appellant have been issued a Show Cause Notice to deny the benefit of N/N. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006. As the goods cleared by the appellants are classified under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading Nos. 8413 and 8431 whereas the above mentioned Customs Notification exempted the goods falling under Customs Sub-heading No. 9801. As the issue has already been settled in the appellants own case for the earlier period in 2023 (7) TMI 298 - CESTAT KOLKATA wherein it has been held that appellants is entitled for benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Thus, the appellant is entitled for benefit of the said notification - there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit of exemption notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 2. Classification of goods under the correct Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading. 3. Compliance with conditions for exemption under international competitive bidding. 4. Precedent cases supporting the appellant's claim for exemption. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 The appellant contested the denial of the benefit of exemption notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 for the manufacture and clearance of Centrifugal Pumps and spares supplied to Mega Power Projects. The exemption under Serial No. 91 of the notification is contingent upon the goods being exempt from customs duties under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and additional duty under Section 3 when imported into India. The appellant claimed that they supplied goods against international competitive bidding, supported by a Project Authority's Certificate, which included the necessary certifications and indicated a nil rate of duty on the invoices. Issue 2: Classification of Goods Under the Correct Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading The adjudicating authority classified the goods under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading Nos. 8413 and 8431, whereas the exemption notification referenced goods under Customs Sub-heading No. 9801. The appellant argued that their goods were correctly classified under chapter 84139120 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and thus eligible for the exemption under the notification. Issue 3: Compliance with Conditions for Exemption Under International Competitive Bidding The adjudicating authority observed that the goods were supplied to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. without evidence of their use in the power project by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. and not directly against international competitive bidding. The appellant clarified that M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. invited international competitive bidding, and M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. was awarded the contract. The appellant, as a supplier, was named in the Project Authority's Certificate, and the goods were supplied to the Raigarh Thermal Power Project set up by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., thus meeting the exemption conditions. Issue 4: Precedent Cases Supporting the Appellant's Claim for Exemption The appellant cited several precedent cases where similar circumstances led to the granting of exemption under notification No. 6/2006-CE. These cases include: - Sarita Steels & Industries Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 313 (Tri.-Bang.) - Cords Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (342) ELT 264 (Tri.-Del.) - Paramount Communication Ltd. 2016 (344) ELT 091 (Tri.-Del.) - Commissioner v. Paramount Communication Ltd. 2018 (360) ELT A324(Raj.) The Tribunal found these decisions applicable, noting that the facts and circumstances were similar to the appellant's case. In Sarita Steels & Industries Ltd., it was held that goods supplied to a mega power project through a sub-contractor who had participated in international competitive bidding were eligible for the exemption. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, as the issue had already been settled in the appellant's favor for an earlier period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.
|
