9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L EXCISE, KOLKATA-III [ 2023 (7) TMI 298 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has observed that the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, as they have fulfilled all the conditions required to avail the said exemption. Accordingly, we hold that the demands made in the impugned order are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, as they have fulfilled all the conditions required to avail Cenvat credit, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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. 2.3 A Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2012 was issued to the Appellant for the period November 2011 to July 2013 alleging that goods were not exempted from payment of Customs duties and hence, the conditions stipulated in the Notification has not been fulfilled. The said Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2014, wherein the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura; or b) an inter-State thermal power plant of capacity or 1000MW or more, located in the States other the those specified in clause (a) above; or c) an inter-State hydel power plant of a capacity of 350MW or more, located in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura; or d) an inter-state hydel power plant of a capacity of 500MW or more, located in states other than those specified in clause (c) above. 10. As has been stated by us earlier, it is undisputed that mega power project which was sought to be executed by BHEL has complie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Customs Tariff 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 bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
