TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT rules in favor of manufacturer in Central Excise duty exemption dispute</h1> <h3>NATIONAL STEEL & AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T., INDORE</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of CR coils, sheets, and similar items, in a dispute over Central ... Supply of goods for Nabinagar Thermal Power Project - Sl. No. 336 of N/N. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012 - exemption denied on the ground that the supplies made to mega power projects are identified and listed under Sl. No. 338 of the very same notification - Held that:- The appellant produced due certification from project authorities and there is no dispute regarding supply of goods to the project as per ICB. In such situation, the claim of the appellant for exemption under Sl. No. 336 cannot be declined. It is not for the Revenue to insist that the appellant should avail another exemption though applicable to the appellant. The same is at the choice of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Interpretation of Central Excise duty exemption notifications.2. Eligibility of exemption under Sl. No. 336 of Notification 12/2012-C.E.3. Dispute over exemption for supplies made to mega power projects.4. Applicability of exemption under Sl. No. 338 of the same notification.5. Legal precedent regarding choice of exemption when multiple options are available.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute arising from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, regarding the Central Excise duty exemption claimed by the appellant, a manufacturer of CR coils, sheets, and similar items. The appellant had secured a contract from M/s. BHEL for supplying goods for the Nabinagar Thermal Power Project, which was awarded through international competitive bidding. The Revenue contended that the supplies made to mega power projects were covered under a specific exemption listed under Sl. No. 338 of Notification 12/2012-C.E., and hence, the appellant should not avail exemption under Sl. No. 336.Upon hearing both parties and examining the facts, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions specified under Sl. No. 336 of the notification, including supplying goods against international competitive bidding and obtaining certification from project authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the choice of exemption lies with the appellant, as supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HCL Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi. The Supreme Court ruling established that when multiple notifications are applicable, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption that provides greater relief. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for exemption under Sl. No. 336 could not be denied, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.This judgment clarifies the principle that when there are multiple exemption options available to an assessee, they have the right to choose the one that is most beneficial to them. The decision underscores the importance of fulfilling the specified conditions for claiming exemptions under Central Excise duty notifications and upholds the assessee's discretion in selecting the applicable exemption provision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
