9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . BHEL is the main contractor of an approved project - Appeals are allowed - E/752-757/2008 - 1076-1081/2010 - Dated:- 15-7-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Vivekanandan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - All these appeals are directed against the impugned Order-in-original No. 31/2008, dated 30-7-2008. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the main 2. appellant herein M/s. Sarita Steels Industries Ltd. (SSIL) is manufacturer of excisable goods like angles, channels, beams etc. SSIL submitted a letter dt. 31-3-2006 to the authorities that they have a contract with M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) for supply of finished products like angles, channels, beams etc. for mega power project which was awarded to BHEL. The letter also indicated that SSIL would be seeking the exemption from payment of duty as given under Notification No. 6/2006, dt. 1-3-2006 under Sl. No. 91. Further claiming the said exemption, the goods were cleared to BHEL. Investigation was conducted by the authorities and on conclusion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from payment of duty. He would also draw our attention to the decision of this Bench in the case of CST Ltd. v. CC C.E., Hyderabad-I [2007 (217) E.L.T. 513 (Tri. - Bang.)] and submits that an identical issue was decided by the Bench. It is his submission that the appellant herein had not participated in the international competitive bidding but had supplied the goods to person who has own the contract based upon international competitive biddings. Ld. SDR on the other hand would submit that benefit of Notification No. 4. 6/2006-C.E. applies only if assessee supplies the goods against international competitive bidding. It is his submission that in the instant case, the assessee has not participated in the international competitive bidding of mega power project and they have supplied the goods to BHEL who were awarded the contract albeit based upon international competitive bidding. It is his submission that BHEL or the appellant herein are not registered under Project Import Regulations, 1986 and benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dt. 1-3-2002 is not available to them. It is his submission that the said customs notification is available only for the goods under Chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sl. No. Chapter or heading Description of goods Rate Condition 91 Any chapter All goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding Nil 19 and the condition attached thereto is read as under : - Condition 19. If the goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. It can be seen from the above reproduced entry No. 91 of Notification No. 9. 6/2006 that goods of any chapter if supplied against international competitive bidding, exemption is available subject to the condition as reproduced above. The condition No. 19 requires all the goods are to be exempted under the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. On perusal of the relevant entries in the Customs Tariff Act, we find that at entry No. 400, the following is indicated in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 400. 98.01 Goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project, so certified b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods imported for supply to Mega Projects are entitled to whole duty exemption under Customs Tariff Act. The next thing to be examined is whether the goods supplied are against International Competitive Bidding. The appellants are a sub-contractor of M/s. BHEL. M/s. BHEL is executing the Mega Project for Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Project by International Bidding. The appellants have submitted ail the relevant records. The appellants are also found in the list of sub-contractors. Since the goods are supplied by the appellants to BHEL, who are executing the project by International Competitive Bidding, it is very clear that the goods cleared by the appellants should be considered as goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding . There is absolutely no need that the appellants themselves should have been the bidder in International Competitive Bidding. In huge projects, the main contractor does not do everything. There is always a system of sub-contractors. If we take a view that the goods cleared by sub-contractors are not entitled for exemption on the ground they are not the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
