9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Government of India to this effect - it is very much clear that the appellant has satisfied the requirement of the certificate as per the notification. Whether the goods have been supplied under International Competitive Bidding to M/s. BHEL? - Held that: - the issue has been settled in the case of CST Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2008 (2) TMI 755 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], wherein it has been held that goods supplied by sub-contractor to main contractor who has executed mega power project to International Competitive Bidding was also eligible for benefit of exemption 6/2000. The denial of exemption is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/598/2010 - Final Order No.43180/2017 - Dated:- 11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the exemption in respect of supplies made against International Competitive Bidding is provided at Sl.No.91 of Notification No.6/2006. It is subject to the condition that the goods also be exempted under customs duties. The Customs Notification No. 21/2002-CE which provides for exemption of such goods under Customs is subject to the condition 86. In terms of condition No. 86, exemption is available on furnishing required certificate from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, certifying the following:- (i) the power purchasing State has constituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Tribunal in the case of CST Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 2008 (230) ELT 85 (Tri. Bang.). The ld.counsel also adverted to Notification No. 49/2006-Cus. dated 26.5.2006 by which sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of condition 86 was substituted with an amendment stating that if the power purchasing State undertakes, in principle, to privatize distribution in all cities, in that State, each of which has a population of more than one million, within a period to be fixed by the Ministry of Power, the condition would be considered as satisfied. That the appellant has produced documents certifying the above and therefore the denial of benefit of exemption is unjustified. 4. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
