9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub contractors of ONGC - HELD THAT:- The demand has been raised by the Department asserting that the Appellant has not furnished an affidavit to the effect that they are the bonafide sub contractors of ONGC. It is pertinent to note here that the condition for claiming exemption under the said notification corresponds to the requirement of the goods being eligible for exemption and the furnishing of such documents in support of the claims by the importers whereas in the present case the Appellants are domestic suppliers and as regards the goods being eligible for exemption there exists no dispute to the fact by the Department. The said issue under similar circumstances has been settled by the Hon ble Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of KENT IN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Organic Pvt. Ltd on identical issues vide Appeal Nos. E/10467/2015 - DB and E/10485/2015 DB against Orders in Appeals Nos. VAD/EXCUS/ 001/AAP/626/2014 15 dated 07.01.2015 and VAD/EXCUS/001COM/029 14 15 dated 25.03.2015 respectively. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s ACI Industries are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing Cenvat Credit under provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The basic issue in both the appeals are that the Appellants had cleared field chemicals viz Di -ethylene Tri Amine Pentad Acetic Acid (DTPA) and Di Sodium (EDTA) to ONGC for their petroleum operations under International Competiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igated to fulfill conditions specific for importers. The appellant submit that the Adjudicating Authority has travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice while re adjudicating the case. They relied on the judgment of Kent Introl Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik 2014 TIOL 211 CESTAT Mum. 3. Shri Ajay. K. Samota, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Department reiterates findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and pursued the records. We find that in the present case the Appellants have made the supply of the goods to ONGC under International Competitive Bidding and availed exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification which stipulates that the goods are exempt from duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff and the Additional Duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. As regards the condition No.29 referred to in Notification No.21/2002, those conditions have been stipulated to be complied by the importers of goods and do not apply to domestic manufacturers. So long as the goods are exempt, the condition to be satisfied by the domestic suppliers is that they should be supplied under International Competitive Bidding which the appellant has fulfilled in these appeals. (Emphasis applied). Therefore, we have to uphold the contention of the appellant and reject the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
