Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant, as a sub-contractor supplying goods to a project executed through International Competitive Bidding, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 91/2004-Cus and Notification No. 6/2006-CE.
Analysis: The project was floated through International Competitive Bidding by the project implementing authority, and the appellant was named as a sub-contractor in the project certificate. The goods were manufactured using duty-free imported raw materials and supplied for the power project site. The exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant itself was not the bidder in the bidding process, since the main contractor had secured the project through ICB and the supplies were made in furtherance of that project. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that supplies by a sub-contractor to an ICB-backed project satisfy the notification requirement.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notifications.
Final Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalties were unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A sub-contractor supplying goods for an approved project executed through International Competitive Bidding is not disqualified from exemption merely because it was not itself the bidder, where the supplies are traceable to the ICB project and the notification conditions are otherwise satisfied.