2023 (6) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption - Mega Power Project - goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding will be charged at nil rate of duty - Denial of benefit of otification no.48/2004-CE read with Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.400 (as amended) - goods classifiable under 98.01 relates to goods imported under project imports HELD THAT - The appellant has supplied the goods for Mega Power Project to be executed by M/s BHEL and certificate to that effect that has been received. In the case of SARITA STEELS INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM 2010 (7) TMI 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , who supplied the goods for the same project, wherein this Tribunal has observed that the wordings of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. categorically indicates that the goods which are required for execution of mega power project are exempted. It is undisputed in the case before us that channels, beams, angles are goods required for execution of mega power project. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of the Notification - there are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the denial of benefit under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.400 (as amended).

Facts and Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of shaft couplings, cleared goods under the benefit of the mentioned Notification to M/s Jindal Power Limited for a Mega Power Project. The notification specified conditions for exemption related to specific charter headings. A show-cause notice was issued to deny the benefit, leading to the demand for duty confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant contested, citing precedents where similar benefits were allowed. The Tribunal observed that the appellant supplied goods for a Mega Power Project, meeting certification requirements, and referred to previous cases where exemption was granted under similar circumstances.

Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal compared relevant conditions from different notifications to determine eligibility for exemption. It noted that the goods supplied were for a Mega Power Project, meeting certification requirements, and that the appellant's role as a sub-contractor did not disqualify them from the benefit. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods supplied were essential for the project execution, aligning with the notification's intent. It concluded that the impugned order was not in line with the law and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the notification conditions and the appellant's role in supplying goods for a Mega Power Project, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim for exemption. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.