Exemption conditions must be confined to the notification's text; project-import registration cannot be added to deny relief.

Where goods supplied for a mega power project satisfy the conditions expressly prescribed in Notification No. 06/2006-C.E., including production of the required certification by an officer not below Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Power, the excise exemption is available. The Tribunal held that the exemption could not be denied on the further ground that the imports were not registered as project imports, because such registration was not a condition stated in the notification. The exemption claim was therefore upheld and the departmental appeal failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 for goods supplied for a mega power project. (ii) Whether denial of the exemption was justified on the ground that the imports were not registered as project imports under the relevant customs regime.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 for goods supplied for a mega power project.

Analysis: The exemption under the central excise notification was linked to goods supplied for mega power projects, and the corresponding customs notification covered goods imported for such projects subject to production of certification by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Power. The respondent had produced the requisite certificate, and the goods were found to satisfy the prescribed conditions. The adjudicating authority had also recorded that the goods supplied against international competitive bidding were covered by the customs exemption and, on that basis, the excise exemption conditions stood fulfilled.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of the exemption was justified on the ground that the imports were not registered as project imports under the relevant customs regime.

Analysis: The Revenue's objection was that Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 98 and the Project Imports Regulations required registration of the imports with the appropriate customs house. The Tribunal rejected this objection, holding that the customs notification itself did not prescribe such registration as a condition for the exemption claimed here. Since the relevant certification requirement was met and the goods were otherwise covered by the notification, absence of project import registration did not defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: Denial of the exemption on the ground of non-registration as project imports was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim was upheld, the demand failed on merits, and the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the conditions expressly stipulated in the exemption notification are satisfied, additional requirements not found in the notification cannot be read in to deny the exemption.

---