9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal Nos. 771 & 772 of 2011 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75934-75935/2023 - Dated:- 26-6-2023 - HON'BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri N. K. Chowdhury , Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER K. ANPAZHAKAN The Appellant is a manufacturer of P.D. Pumps and spares. The Appellant cleared the said goods by availing the exemption as per Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure Projects Ltd., C/o Jindal Power Ltd. and Udupi Poluler Corporation Ltd. In terms of the the said notification, all good supplied against international competitive bidding is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty as mentioned in Serial No. 91 of the said notification, subject to fulfillment of condition 19 of the said notification. Condition No.19 provides that the exemption available if the goods are exempted for duties of Customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation that the goods cleared were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading Nos. 8413 8431 whereas the above mentioned Customs Notification exempted goods under Customs Sub-heading No.9801. Further, goods have been supplied to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and there was no evidence that goods have been used in the power project set up by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. The goods were supplied against specific purchase order of M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and not against international competitive bidding. 8. The appellant submits that M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. invited international competitive bidding. M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure Projects Ltd. obtained the Order and Letter of Intent was issued by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. to M/s IVRCl Infrastructure Projects Ltd. The appellant was one of the suppliers, which is clearly evident from the Project Authority s Certificate forwarded to the Appellant vide letter dated 21.11.2006 by M/s IVRCl Infrastructure Projects Ltd. The supply of goods to M/s IVRCl Infrastructure Projects Ltd. was at the site of M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., which is amounting to supply of the goods to the Raigarh Thermal Power Project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-CE., was done so, after a certificate issued 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 sites of mega power project duty signed by authorized duly signed by the 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 relatable to chapter 98.01 to get the benefit of customs Notification No. 21/2002 and nor the appellant nor BHEL, registered for ay project imports to get the benefit of customs Notification No. 21/2002 and nor the appellant no BHEL registered for any project imports. 8. At the outset, we would find that the entries in the Notification No. 6/2006 reds as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 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 subcontractor. M/s Jindal Power Ltd. In turn had procured angles, beams, channels etc. from the appellant for execution of such mega 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 m mega power project. This being undisputed fact, we find that the decision of this Bench in the case of CST Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the issue. We may reproduce the said ratio which reads as under :- 6 The learned Advocate brought to our notice the relevant conditions of the exemption Notification. In terms of Notification No. 48/2004, against SI. No. 301, all goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding, falling under any Chapter are exempted subject to condition 64 of the Notification. Condition 64 reads as follows :- 64 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. It can be seen that in the said case of CST Ltd., an identical issue was raised and again in respect of the very 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 liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. 13. Following the decisions cited above, we hold that the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
