9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur I [2016 (9) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the denial of exemption on the ground of classification shown under Customs Notification is 9801 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.1892/2011 - A/55789/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As per PAC, goods were being supplied under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and import of which was permitted at Zero Custom Duty under notification No.21/2002Cus dated 01.03.2002. The appellant has claimed the benefit of Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.3.2006 (S.No.91) but the same was denied by the department. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecution of mega power project are categorically exempted by the said customs notification. So in Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 v. CCE ST, Jaipur - 2013 (298) E.L.T . 79 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal held that there is no Heading 9801 in Central Excise Tariff which is only in Customs Tariff. The goods manufactured in India cannot be classified under 9801, accordingly, denial of exemption on that groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 is not available in Central Excise Tariff and the same relates to project import, as such the denial of exemption on this grounds is legally not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 6. By following the ratio laid down in the above mentioned case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant. 7. In the result, appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
