9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 3.4.2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)-II, Jaipur. The issue involved in the present appeal is the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under Notification No.6/06-CE dated 1.3.2006 in respect of goods supplied to Mega Power Projects. The exemption is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order held as below :- ".2 It has been alleged that since item Coal Tar Primer and Coal Tar Tape (both falling under CETH 68071090) have been indigenously manufactured by the appellant it cannot be termed as the goods imported in to India. In this regards I have gone through relevant Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 and more precisely Sl.No.91 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legation is not sustainable. Further as regards allegation that the appellant has not proved that they have been awarded to supply Coal Tar Tape and Coal Tar Primer, I find that vide Amendment No.(4), dated 30.08.2010 to Project Authority Certificate No.APML/HO/PAC/064 dated 20.05.2010 the appellant was awarded (Name of appellant appearing at Sr.No.15-16 to Annexure-I to said amendment as sub-vend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 1.3.2006 as cannot be denied on this point also. Held accordingly." 2. The Revenue is aggrieved on the ground that the classification under Customs Notification is different and as such, the exemption under notification no.6/06-CE cannot be extended to the respondent. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 4. We find that the reasons and findings recorded in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
