2017 (12) TMI 1433 - AT - Central Excise

N/N. 6/2006-CE - international competitive bidding - case of appellant is that the goods were meant only for supply against international competitive bidding and hence, asserted that thy will be eligible for the benefit of N/N. 6/2006 - Held that - the Project Authority Certificate available on record, indicates that the goods under dispute are meant to be supplied by the appellant to the power plant being executed by Jindal Power Ltd. for the mega power plant at Raigarh. This satisfies the main condition of the N/N. 6/2006 (Sl. No.91) - in similar circumstances, the benefit of alternate N/N. 21/2002 Cus. has been held to be allowable in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (2) TMI 633 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that So long as the goods are exempt, the condition to be satisfied by the domestic suppliers is that they should be supplied under International Competitive Bidding which the appellant has fulfilled in these appeals and is eligible for exemption - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.189/2007-CE dated 26.4.2007 regarding exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE and Notification No.91/2004-Cus.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric motors and AC generators, filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.189/2007-CE dated 26.4.2007. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE for goods supplied under international competitive bidding. The dispute arose as the original authority disallowed the claim, stating that the benefit would not apply due to the conditional nature of Customs Notification No.91/2004 related to imports against an advance license. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision. The appellant contended that full exemption from customs duty was available under Customs Notification No.21/2002 for imported goods. The main condition under Notification No.6/2006-CE was that goods must be meant for supply against international competitive bidding. The appellant argued that the goods in question met this criterion, supported by a Project Authority Certificate from M/s. Jindal Power. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. (2014) and the Bombay High Court's affirmation of the same.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the goods were intended for supply to the power plant being executed by Jindal Power Ltd., meeting the main condition of Notification No.6/2006-CE. Referring to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the appellant fulfilled the conditions for exemption under the Excise Notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions under Notification No.21/2002 were for importers and did not apply to domestic manufacturers. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention, rejecting the Revenue's argument. Citing the Tribunal's previous decision and the Bombay High Court's approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal on 05/12/2017.