9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re various decisions of this Tribunal dealing with similar set of facts, wherein the exemption claimed were allowed to the assessee. Reference can be made to two of the recent decisions - Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], and KEI Industries Limited Versus CCE, Jaipur-I [2016 (7) TMI 1221 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.58915/2013-EX(DB) - Final Order No.54619/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the appellant/Department. Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal by the Revenue is agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons No.19 attached to it, and find that, the additional customs duty leviable under Customs Tariff Act when imported into India will not attract any duty in terms of Entry No.400 of Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 i.e. goods required for setting up mega power project are exempted from payment of duty subject to the conditions mentioned at Sl.No.86. Hence all the goods used for setting up Mega Power Project are classifiable under heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff are exempted. In the instant M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., Tiroda instead of importing the said items have procured the same indigenously under Project Authority Certificate and hence the same are exempted from payment of central excise duty in terms of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 impugned order as reproduced above cannot be faulted. There are various decisions of this Tribunal dealing with similar set of facts, wherein the exemption claimed were allowed to the assessee. Reference can be made to two of the recent decisions - Final Order No.52166-52167/2016 dated 23.06.2016 in Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I, Final Order No.52371 of 2016 dt. 1.7.2016 in KEI Industries Ltd and Final Order No.53297 of 2016 dt. 31.8.2016 in Cords Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. 5. Following the ratio in the settled cases, we find no reasons to interfere with the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
