9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. In terms of Notification No. 21/20025-Cus dated1.3.2002 as amended, the goods are exempted as mentioned in Serial No. 400 of the said notification. Serial No.400 is subject to Condition No. 86 which provides for a certificate from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Power as mentioned therein. 2. Thus the appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, in view of the fact that there was no dispute with respect to the goods which were supplied against international competitive bidding and supported by Project Authority's Certificates and also supported by Certificate of the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Power. They have fulfilled all the conditions of the Notifications and hence, they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2007 was issued to the Appellant alleging that goods were not exempted from payment of Customs duties and hence, the conditions stipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the site of M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., which is amounting to supply of the goods to the Raigarh Thermal Power Project being set up by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. Therefore, the supply of goods by the appellant to M/s IVRCl Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. amounts to supply of goods to M/s Mega Power Project. In the invoice, the said fact has been clearly mentioned. We observe that the above facts clearly indicates that the goods were supplied to Power Projects approved against international competitive bidding, as required for availing the benefit of the Notification 6/2006-Ce dated 01.03.2006. 9. The Appellant further submits that goods supplied by the appellant may fall under any Chapter heading, but if required for the mega power project, the same would be covered by Sub-heading No.9801 in terms of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1.3.2002. Thus, they contended that there is no dispute that the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 10. The Appellant stated that similar type of cases came up for consideration earlier before the Tribunals and it has been consistently held by the Tribunals in the similar set of facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we would find that the entries in the Notification No. 6/2006 reds as under :- Sl. Chapter or heading Description of goods Rate 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, 1965 (51 of 1976) ad the additional duty leviable upper 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 bidding, exemption is available subject to the condition as reproduced above. The condition No. 19 requires all the goods re to be exempted under the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. On perusal of the relevant entries in the Customs Tariff Act, we find that at entry No.400, the following is indicated in notification No.21/2002-Cus. 400 98.1Goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project, so certified by an officer no below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff 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". There is absolutely no 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-contractor does not do everything. There is 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 appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
