9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR, For the Respondent ORRDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.189/2007-CE dated 26.4.2007. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electric motors and AC generators falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were listed as subcontractors of M/s. Mather and Platt Pumps Ltd. who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed that the goods were exempted from payment of customs duty as per Notification No.91/2004-Cus. dated 10.9.2004. However, the original authority disallowed the claim of the appellant and held that the benefit will not be available since the Customs Notification No.91/2004 was a conditional Notification which was related to the imports against advance license. The same view was also taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in Sl. No.91 of Notification No.6/2006-CE is that the goods are eligible for the benefit only when they are meant for supply against international competitive bidding. By drawing our attention to the relevant Project Authority Certificate issued by M/s. Jindal Power, he invites our attention to the point that the goods were meant only for supply against international competitive bidding and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No.6/2006 wherein the Tribunal observed as under: "5.2 The Customs Notification stipulates that goods specified in List 12 should be supplied to petroleum operations undertaken by ONGC or Oil India Ltd. and Item 15 of List 12 covers all types of valves and all such valves are eligible for Customs duty exemption both from Basic Customs duty as well as CVD. Therefore, the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l's decision in the case of CST (cited supra) also confirms this view." 5.1 We note that in similar circumstances, the benefit of alternate Notification No.21/2002 Cus. has been held to be allowable in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has also been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. By following the Tribunal's order (supra), we find no reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
