9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Sub-Heading No. 72142090 at nil rate of duty to M/s Nagarjuna Thermal Power Project set up by M/s Nagarjuna Power Corporation Limited, an inter-state Thermal Power Plant of capacity of 1015 MW, which qualifies as a Mega Power Project as per Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No. 400. The goods were supplied to the project without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Project Authority Certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagarjuna Power Corporation Limited dated 06.09.2007. In accordance with the Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 Sl.No.91, it was mentioned that if the goods are exempted from Excise duty leviable under the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the additional duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Chaper 72 and the same are not covered under exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 inasmuch as that they are not included in the list of goods specified under the said exemption Notification. Therefore, the goods can be classified under Chapter 98 of the Customs Tariff Act and attract exemption owing to the fact that the Chapter deals with only Project Imports of certain commodities, mainly, all items of machinery or raw materials for manufacture of those machinery. TMT bar is neither machinery as described under Chapter Heading 98.01 of the CTA nor raw materials for manufacture of those machinery. As a consequence, exemption on TMT bar is not available. Therefore, the conditions of Project Import Regulation have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the appellant's own case has observed as under : "3. With this background, we have heard Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Counsel for the Department. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the identical issue has come up in the case of Cords Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I reported in 2016 (342) ELT 264 (Tri.Del.) where it was observed that : "5. We find that in the same set of facts came up for decision before this Tribunal in earlier cases. In Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd. v. CCE vide Final Orders Nos. 1076-1081/2010, dated 15-7-2010 [2011 (264) E.L.T. 313 (Tribunal)], the Tribunal held that when the fact that supplies are made to mega power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al." By following our earlier decision, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 6. Further, in the case of Industrial Perforation (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has observed as under : "7. We find that the goods have been cleared by the appellants to the specified Mega Power Projects against International Competitive Biddings and the said facts have duly been recorded in the impugned order and there is no dispute on the said facts. The notifications under which exemptions have been claimed by appellants are subject to condition that the said goods, when imported into India, are exempted from payment of customs duty. In the instant case, since the goods have been supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff there is no Heading 98.01 which exists in Customs Tariff only. Since the goods manufactured in India cannot be classified under Heading 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, denial of the exemption on the ground of non-fulfilment of condition of Project Import Regulation is not sustainable particularly when Condition No. 86 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3- 2002 is fulfilled by them. Similar submissions were made by Revenue for denying the benefit of Notification 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 on the ground of non-fulfilment of conditions of the Project Import Regulation in case of Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd. reported in [2011 (264) E.L.T. 313] and Tribunal in that case allowed the exemption under Notification 6/2006-C.E., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 21/2002-Cus. (Project Imports) when imported into India. We are of the view that the Learned Commissioner has attempted to examine the fulfilment of a condition which is not appearing in the subject Excise Exemption Notifications. We observed that the only condition is that goods are cleared under International Competitive Bidding for use in the specified Mega Power Projects which are exempted from customs duty. The supply of subject goods in the instant case for Mega Power Project under International Competitive Bidding is on record and not in dispute. Moreover, since the case of the appellant has already been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal as noted above, the appellant is legally entitled to exemption from payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
