9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stry that power project is not a mere expansion of existing power project, but is an independent power project, which is newly setup. Further as per N/N. 12/2012-Cus. Dt.17/3/2012, the said power project is specified in Entry 53 of the List 32A - but for the change in the name of the project, the contractor, contractee and the purpose of the contract examined in the earlier Final Order remain the same. Going therefore by the maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur, the appellant should succeed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/00196/2012 - Final Order No. 42145/2018 - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. D. Santhana Gopalan, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0MW (2x500MW). b) Clarification dt. 26.10.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Power, wherein it was categorically stated that (ii) the units 8 9 of 500 MW each at Chandrapur Project of MAHAGENCO is an independent power project and not an expansion of a Mega Power Project in terms of Notification 137/2009-Customs dt. 11 th December, 2009. , c) As per Sl. No. 507 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dt. 17.03.2012, the goods required for setting up of Mega Power Projects enumerated in List 32A of the said Notification are exempt from payment of excise duty. The Chandrapur Expansion, Maharashtra 2x500 = 1000 MW (MSPGCL) is specified in Entry 53 of the List 32A. Therefore, the impugned projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier Final Order No. 41755/2018 dt. 27.04.2018 of this Bench, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced below: 6. The main dispute to be analysed is whether power project in respect of which supplies were made by the appellants is a standalone project which was newly set up or whether it is an expansion of existing power project. The department has sought to deny the benefit of exemption alleging that the power project is only an expansion of existing unit at Chandrapur. This is because the word expansion was used in the bid documents, Project Authority Certificate as well as the Certificate issued by the Joint Secretary dt.16/10/2009. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the Certificate issued by Joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 9) Chandrapur Expention Project of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd (MAHAGENCO) under the Mega Power Policy in terms of notification No.137/2009-Customs dated 11th December, 2009. Ref: (i) MAHAGENCO s Letter No.DG/CHN 2x500 MW/MPP/1471 dated 15.10.2010 (ii) MAHAGENCO s letter dated January 24, 2008 seeking Mega Power Project status for Chandrapur Units 8 9. (iii) Mega Power status certificate vide No.5/6/2008 - S. Th. Dated 16th December, 2009. Sir, I am to refer to your letter No.DG/CHN 2x500 MW /MPP/1471 dated 15.10.2010 regarding Mega Power Project Status granted 2x500 MW (Units 8 9) Chandrapur Expention Project of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd (MAHAGENCO) vide certificate No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued raising the very same allegation has been dropped, observing that the power project is an independent one newly set up and not an expansion of an existing project. The relevant discussion in the aforesaid Order-In-Original is reproduced as under :- 4.15 It is pertinent to note that Column 3 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus, describing the exempted goods starts as Goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project specified in List 32A , Sl.Nos.53 and 55 specify Chandrapur Expansion (2 x 500 MW) and Busawal Expansion (2 x 500 MW). Thus the Finance Ministry have specifically accepted the very same Expansion projects as setting up of projects. The only condition is that Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power should certify so, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us, we are convinced that the denial of exemption is without any basis, and therefore the duty demand cannot sustain. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. 5.2 We find that the facts in the present appeal are pari materia to the above decision. In fact, but for the change in the name of the project, the contractor, contractee and the purpose of the contract examined in the earlier Final Order remain the same. Going therefore by the maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur , we have to hold that the appellant should succeed. 5.3 Our view also stands fortified by fact that for the subsequent period i.e., March 2011 to February 2012 in respect of the same p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
