9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bidder in ICB for the mega power project. In our view so long as the goods are supplied to such contract awarded to a person who took part in the International Competitive Bidding, the benefit is not deniable. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) had participated in the ICB and entered into an agreement with M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (Project Authority) for setting up of the 1000MW Raigarh Thermal Power Project in Chhattisgarh. This project received the status of Mega Power Project from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Power. BHEL had sub-contracted the Appellant for the supply of boilers and parts for setting up of the plant. The Project Authority Certificate also clearly recognized the Appellant as one of the sub-contractors for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... periods having the common issue. Hence, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed by this common order. The details of the two appeals are given in table below:- Appeal No. Appeal No. E/85/2009 Appeal No. E/302/2009 Period of demand March 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to May 2007 Demand confirmed Rs.2,42,51,622/- Rs.86.57,991/- Order-in-Original No./date Order-in-Original No. 1011Commr/BOL/08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he International Competitive Bidding Process hence, they are not entitled for the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE as amended by Notification No. 48/2004-CE. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by various Show Cause Notices covering different periods proposing to deny exemption on the above ground and to demand differential duty on the clearances made. The Commissioner while adjudicating the Show Cause Notices by 2 separate orders covering different periods has confirmed the duty demand. The main finding given by the Commissioner as evident from the impugned orders is that the appellant being the supplier of the goods to Jindal Power Limited, the recipient of the goods, having not participa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site the admissibility of the exemption notification cannot be denied. 06. The Ld. Counsel further submits that in the present case, it is an undisputed fact that Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) have participated in the ICB and have entered into an agreement with M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (Project Authority) for setting up of the 1000MW Raigarh Thermal Power Project in Chhattisgarh which has received the status of Mega Power Project from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Power. BHEL had sub-contracted the Appellant for the supply of boilers and parts for setting up of the plant. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Toshniwal Indus Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the International Competitive Bidding. The Commissioner while interpreting the notification has held that the benefit will be available only for the persons who had directly entered into the bidding process. We find that the Notification only stipulates that the excisable goods supplied against an ICB are eligible from payment of duty. In our view there is no condition stipulated in the notification that the person claiming benefit for the goods cleared should have been the bidder in ICB for the mega power project. In our view so long as the goods are supplied to such contract awarded to a person who took part in the International Competitive Bidding, the benefit is not deniable. 9. We further note from the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sr. No. 400) nor the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sr. No. 91) is subject to any conditions stipulated in Foreign Trade Policy. BHEL as the main contractor could have imported the impugned goods without payment of Customs duty in view of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sr. No. 400). Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. Sr. No. 91 only makes it possible to procure such goods locally without payment of excise duty if BHEL so desires and BHEL opted for local procurement from the assessee-appellants. So, naturally the assessee-appellants should be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sr. No. 91). Prima facie, the deemed export benefits dealt within para 8.6.1 and 8.6.2 deal with incen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
