9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Floting Shaft Coupling without payment of duty availing exemption benefit of the above cited Notification to M/s Jindal Power Limited on account of M/s BHEL. 2.1 On perusal of the said notification no.48/2004-CE dated 10.09.2004, it was leant that this notification is an amendment of the earlier notification no.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. In this notification, it has been mentioned at Sl. No. 301 that excisable goods falling under any chapter if supplied against International Competitive Bidding will be charged at nil rate of duty subject to fulfillment of condition No.64 as stipulated at column 6. The condition no.64 reads as "if the goods are exempted from the duties of Customs leviable under the first schedule to the Customs Tariff A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered at any customs port. They have also not produced copy of evidence that they are not captive power plant, as the captive power plant is excluded from scope of Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Heading. From close study of these notifications, it appears that no exemption was available under these notifications for goods falling under chapter heading 84.83 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 85 since Sl. 400 of notification no.21/2002-Cus dt. 01.03.2002 as it relates to specific Chapter heading no.98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, (51 of 1975). 2.2 After recording the statement of the Director, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the benefit of the above cited Notification and to demand duty on the appellant. 2.3 The Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India to BHEL and consequent sub-contract given by BHEL. It is also undisputed that the appellant had produced certificate of the receipt of excisable goods at the site of mega power project duly signed by authorized representative of M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., who were sub-contractor of BHEL for execution of such mega power project. On the perusal of the entire Order-in-Original, we find that the adjudicating authority has sought to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006 only on two ground i.e. SSIL has not participated in the international competitive bidding and goods falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act cannot be considered as goods which can be relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apacity of 700MW or more, located in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mozoram, Nagaland and Tirupura; or (b) an inter-State thermal power plant of a capacity of 1000MW or more, located in the States other than those specified in clause (a) above; or (c) an inter-State hydel power plant of a capacity of 350MW or more, located in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mozoram, Nagaland and Tirupura; or (d) an inter-state hydel power plant of a capacity of 500MW or more, located in states other than those specified in clause (c) above. Nil Nil 86 10. As has been stated by us earlier, it is undisputed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported for supply to Mega Projects are entitled to whole duty exemption under Customs Tariff Act. The next thing to be examined is whether the goods supplied are against International Competitive Bidding. The appellants are a sub-contractor of M/s. BHEL. M/s. BHEL is executing the Mega Project for Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Project by International Bidding. The appellants have submitted ail the relevant records. The appellants are also found in the list of sub-contractors. Since the goods are supplied by the appellants to BHEL, who are executing the project by International Competitive Bidding, it is very clear that the goods cleared by the appellants should be considered as "goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same executor of mega power project i.e. BHEL. We find that the ratio as reproduced hereinabove squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. As regards submissions made by ld. SDR, we find that the wordings of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. categorically indicates that the "goods" which are required for execution of mega power project are exempted. It is undisputed in the case before us that channels, beams, angles are goods required for execution of mega power project. In view of this, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the ld. SDR will not carry Revenue's case any further. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned order is not in consonance with law and is unsustainable and is liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
