2017 (10) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - sub-contract - supply of electric wires and cables under international competitive bidding to various thermal power plants without payment of duty - Held that - identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Cords Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur I 2016 (9) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the denial of exemption on the ground of classification shown under Customs Notification is 9801 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.94/2011 dated 30.3.2011 regarding exemption under Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 for 'fibre reinforced plastic products (FRP)' supplied under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for a Water treatment plant project.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing FRP products, claimed exemption under Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 for goods supplied under a Water treatment plant project via a main contractor. The department denied the exemption, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal referred to past cases like Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd. v. CCE and Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 v. CCE & ST, emphasizing that goods required for mega projects are exempt under customs notifications. The Tribunal noted that the denial of exemption based on classification under Heading 9801 (related to project import) is not legally sustainable under Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, following precedents, found the denial of exemption to the appellant unjustified as all conditions for exemption under Notification No.6/2006-C.E. were met, except for the classification issue under Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus. Since Heading 9801 does not exist in the Central Excise Tariff and pertains to project import, the denial of exemption on this basis was deemed legally unsustainable. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.