9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent has supplied certain process equipments to Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. for use in Petroleum Exploration Operation against international competitive bidding. So also, we find that in para-2 of both the SCNs, it has been clearly indicated that respondent had cleared processed equipment to M/s.GEA Cooling Tower Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and that the goods were further consigned to M/s.Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. - Thus there is no dispute on the fact that goods have indeed been supplied for the purpose of petroleum exploration operations to the sub-contractor and from thereon to the main contractor. In the circumstances, this particular argument of the Ld. A.R will not succeed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember 2008 to April 2009 inter alia, proposing demand of duty of ₹ 38,95,399/- with interest thereon and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Another SCN dt. 27.04.2010 was issued on identical grounds in respect of other clearances for the period May 2009 to December 2009 inter alia, proposing demand of duty of ₹ 20,88,711/- with interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 ibid. Both these SCNs were adjudicated vide a common order dt. 28.07.2010 wherein the demands of ₹ 38,95,399 and ₹ 20,88,711/- were confirmed with interest and a penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed under Rule 25 ibid. In Appeal, the Commissioner vide impugned order dt. 31.10.2002 allowed the appeal and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t judgement in the case of Commissioner Vs Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 8 (Mad.) and approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2016(335) ELT A 27 (SC). 4. In response, Ld. A.R submits that in al the case laws, the assessee therein was either a contractor or sub contractor whereas in this case respondent is a supplier. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority for a number of reasons. She has first based her opinion upon that condition insisted upon by the department for production of certificate applies only to goods that are imported and since the goods in the instant case were manufactured in India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly that the supply must be of goods in relation to contracts awarded under international competitive bidding procedure, then that condition is squarely satisfied. The condition such as Condition No. 29 which pertains to an importer of the goods need not be, in the given facts, satisfied by the [domestic manufacturer] and that is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 6.4 So also, in Alstom T D (India) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held as under : 3. The question as above being very specific and simple that is answerable from the terms of the notification governing the issue. The notification in terms of Sl. No. 91 read with condition No. 19 therein grants Excise duty/Customs duty exemption to the goods meant for use in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that Hon ble High Court has answered the issue with reference to Item No.29 of the notification whereas the instant case the relevant item is Sl.No.31 of the same notification. While this may be so, both these items of the same notification more or less lists out the same condition of production of certificate from authorized departmental officers of DGHC which is identical in both these items, is the bone of contention in the present appeal also. This being so, the ratio of Bombay High Court judgement will be applicable on all fours to the matter in this appeal. 6.7 Coming to the Ld. A.R s contention that respondents are neither a contractor nor a sub-contractor but only a supplier, the Commissioner (Appeals) in para-6 of the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
