TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant, as a sub-contractor supplying fabricated goods for petroleum operations connected with projects awarded through International Competitive Bidding, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. and consequently not liable to Central Excise duty.
Analysis: The purchase orders and project authority certificate showed that the goods were required for petroleum operations under blocks allotted through the International Competitive Bidding route. The record indicated that the appellant supplied the goods to the operator for use in the relevant project, and the materials were integrally connected with the activity awarded through ICB. The certificate and contemporaneous documents supported the claim that the supplies were made in relation to the project awarded under ICB, and the appellant's position as a sub-contractor did not exclude it from the exemption. The department's distinction between block allotment and the subsequent petroleum operation was not accepted on the facts, and the materials were treated as covered by the claimed exemption.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. and the demand of Central Excise duty was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits, and the duty demand and related penalty did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: A sub-contractor supplying goods to the operator for use in a project awarded through International Competitive Bidding can claim the exemption when the contemporaneous documents establish that the supplies were made in connection with the ICB-awarded project.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
