9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 986 - AT - Central ExciseExemption from Excise Duty under N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - goods supplied against international competitive bidding - appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, in view of the fact that there was no dispute with respect to the goods which were supplied against international competitive bidding - HELD THAT - Considered the fact that the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S WPIL LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-III 2023 (7) TMI 298 - CESTAT KOLKATA has observed that ' 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, we hold that the demands made in the impugned order are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.' The appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, as they have fulfilled all the conditions required to avail Cenvat credit, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 regarding exemption from Central Excise duty for goods supplied against international competitive bidding. - Fulfillment of conditions under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for availing the exemption. - Dispute regarding exemption from payment of Customs duties for the goods supplied. - Adjudication of Show Cause Notice alleging non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the Notification. - Applicability of previous judgments in favor of the appellant. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of whether the appellant, a manufacturer of P.D. Pumps and spares, is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 for goods supplied against international competitive bidding. The appellant claimed exemption from Central Excise duty based on fulfilling conditions under the Notification, including obtaining certificates from the Project Authority and the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Power. However, a Show Cause Notice alleged non-exemption from Customs duties, leading to an adjudication confirming the demands made. The appellant contended that they met all conditions and cited a previous favorable decision in their case for a similar period. The Tribunal referred to its previous Final Order where it was established that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of the Notification for supplying goods to a mega power project. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods supplied against international competitive bidding were exempted under the Notification, subject to specific conditions. It was noted that the main contractor, BHEL, had complied with the necessary certification requirements, and the appellant, as a subcontractor, supplied goods for the project. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's participation in the bidding process was not a prerequisite for availing the exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant entries in the Notifications and Customs Tariff Act to determine the applicability of the exemption. It was observed that the goods supplied by the appellant were essential for the execution of the mega power project, meeting the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment concluded that the appellant fulfilled all conditions required for availing the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, and no demand for payment was sustainable against the appellant based on the settled issue in their favor. In light of the foregoing analysis and the precedents cited, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Notification, and the demands made in the impugned order were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the fulfillment of conditions as the basis for granting the exemption.
|
