9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT, BANGALORE] , who supplied the goods for the same project, wherein this Tribunal has observed 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. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of the Notification - there are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No.86 of 2010 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75534/2023 - Dated:- 1-6-2023 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Muk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t came to light that the Sl. No. 400 of this notification relates to specific charter heading no. i.e. 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) for Goods required for setting up of my Mega Power Project, that is to say- (a) an inter-State thermal power plant of a capacity of 1000 MW or more; or (b) an inter-State hydel power plant of a capacity of 500 MW or more, as certified by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power . This notification is conditional notification and details condition is mentioned at Sl No.86 of the condition attached to the notification. The goods classifiable under 98.01 relates to goods imported under project imports. The project imports itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal has allowed the benefit of exemption and in the case of M/s Sarita Steels Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam reported in 2011 (264) ELT 313 (Tri.- Bangalore), this Tribunal has also allowed the benefit of exemption. 4. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions and perused the records. 6. We find that the appellant has supplied the goods for Mega Power Project to be executed by M/s BHEL and certificate to that effect that has been received. 7. We further find that in the case of M/s Sarita Steels Industries Ltd. (cited supra), who supplied the goods for the same project, wherein this Tribunal has observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Condition 91 Any chapter All goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding Nil 19 and the condition attached thereto is read as under : - Condition 19. If the goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. 9 . It can be seen from the above reproduced entry No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006 that goods of any chapter if supplied against international competitive bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was sought to be executed by BHEL has complied with the conditions of getting a certificate from an officer not below the rank of Jt. Secretary, Govt, of India in the Ministry of Power. After being awarded a contract for setting up a mega power project, for the execution of the same, BHEL appointed M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. as sub-contractor. M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. in turn had procured angles, beams, channels etc from the appellant for execution of such meca power project. We find that the SSIL has not participated in the international competitive bidding, but had cleared the said goods to M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. for execution of mega power project. This being undisputed fact, we find that the decision of this Bench in the case of CST Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o need that the appellants themselves should have been the bidder in International Competitive Bidding. In huge projects, the main contractor does not do everything. There is always a system of sub-contractors. If we take a view that the goods cleared by sub-contractors are not entitled for exemption on the ground they are not the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor will be having hundreds of sub-contractors in Mega Projects. In our view, inasmuch as the appellants had supplied the goods to M/s. BHEL, who are the bidders of International Competitive Bidding, the condition of the Notification is satisfied and there is no justification for denying the exemption notification to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
