Tribunal upholds Central Excise duty exemption for hydro mechanical works despite department's challenge to precedent validity

The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging exemption from Central Excise duty on Huydel Gates, Hoist Mechanism Gate Parts and materials for hydro mechanical works cleared to Mega Power Project under notifications 06/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on case laws not acceptable to the department due to withdrawn SC appeals based on monetary limits. The Tribunal held that its decisions remain precedential until set aside by HC or SC, and departmental circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals cannot diminish precedent value.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the entitlement to duty exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 for goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding for a Mega Power Project.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to duty exemption under Notifications

The department appealed against the order allowing duty exemption to the respondent based on Tribunal decisions in their own case. The respondent, M/s Om Metals Infraprojects Ltd., was awarded a contract to supply equipment for a Hydro Electric Project, and claimed exemption under the Notifications due to goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding. The Adjudicating Authority initially denied the exemption, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Commissioner (Appeals) Decision

The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing the Tribunal's decisions in the respondent's favor. The Commissioner noted that the goods were cleared for the Hydro Electric Project and were eligible for duty exemption under the relevant Notifications. The Commissioner emphasized that the exemption was applicable to goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding, as per the conditions specified in the Notifications.

Issue 3: Department's Objection and Circular

The department objected to the reliance on Tribunal decisions, citing a Circular that limits the precedent value of decisions not appealed due to monetary limits. The Circular states that such cases should not be considered as having precedent value. However, the Tribunal decisions remain binding until overturned by a higher court.

Issue 4: Decision and Dismissal of Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's decisions in the appellant's case. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decisions hold precedence until challenged in a higher court. The Circular's intention is to prevent the assertion that the department accepted a decision due to monetary limits, not to diminish the value of Tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the appellant to duty exemption on specific goods supplied for the Mega Power Project in accordance with the relevant Notifications.

---