2025 (11) TMI 1693 - AT - Central Excise

Broad Scope of Heading 9801: Pipe Fittings for Mega Power Projects Eligible for Exemption under N/N. 06/2006-CE

M/s. Tube Bend (Calcutta) Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata

CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the authorities had wrongly adopted a narrow interpretation of Heading 9801. It ruled that the heading is ... Irregular availment of the benefit of central excise exemption N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - domestic clearance of goods to Mega Power Projects under an international competitive bidding on the premise/contention - underlying goods are not generally exempted from duties of customs - underlying goods does not fall under Chapter 9801 so as to be covered by Customs Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that the authorities below have adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of Heading 9801. The heading is intentionally expansive and covers not only “machinery” but also instruments, apparatus, appliances, control gear, transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment, and all components or raw materials required for the initial setting up of a power project. The pipe fittings supplied by the appellant constitute essential components for the installation of Mega Power Projects, as demonstrated by the detailed particulars of supplies placed on record before us. Thus, we observe that the authorities below have erred in adopting a narrow interpretation that restricted Chapter 9801 to goods falling only under Chapters 84 and 85. Accordingly, all these goods imported by the Appellant fall squarely within the ambit of Heading 9801, notwithstanding their classification under Chapter 73. The appellant is fully entitled to the exemption under N/N. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006, as they satisfy all statutory conditions required for availing the exemption. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the supplies of pipe fittings (Chapter 73) to specified Mega Power Projects against International Competitive Bidding satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 91) so as to qualify for exemption from central excise duty. 1.2 Whether denial of the exemption on the ground that the goods did not fall under Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff, and therefore were not covered by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus (Sl. No. 400), was legally sustainable. 1.3 Consequent upon the above, whether the confirmed demand of duty with interest and penalty imposed under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2 - Eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 91) and interpretation of Heading 9801 / Notification No. 21/2002-Cus Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Tribunal examined Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 91), which prescribes two conditions for exemption: (i) goods must be supplied against International Competitive Bidding; and (ii) such goods, when imported, are exempt from customs duty, including both Basic Customs Duty and additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act (Condition No. 19). 2.2 The Tribunal considered Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, which exempts goods required for specified Mega Power Projects from Basic Customs Duty and CVD, where such goods are covered under Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff. 2.3 The description of Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff, dealing with 'all items of machinery ... as well as all components (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of the aforesaid items ... required for the initial setting up ... of a power project' and other specified projects, was reproduced and examined. Interpretation and reasoning 2.4 The Tribunal recorded that the supplies were undisputedly made against International Competitive Bidding to specified Mega Power Projects, on the strength of project authority certificates, and that there was no allegation of diversion or non-use for the intended projects. Hence, the first condition under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was held to be satisfied. 2.5 The only surviving controversy was whether, for purposes of fulfilling Condition No. 19 of Sl. No. 91, the goods, if imported, would be 'exempt from customs duty' under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, and whether this exemption was dependent on the goods themselves being classified under Heading 9801. 2.6 The adjudicating authority had confined Heading 9801 to 'machinery' under Chapters 84 and 85 and held that pipe fittings under Chapter 73 fell outside its ambit, thereby denying exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and, consequently, under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. 2.7 The Tribunal held that such interpretation was unduly narrow. It emphasized that Heading 9801 is 'intentionally expansive', covering not only machinery but also instruments, apparatus, appliances, control gear, transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment, and 'all components or raw materials' required for initial setting up of power projects and other specified projects. 2.8 The Tribunal found, on record, that the pipe fittings (tube bends, tees, reducers, elbows, etc.) formed an integral and indispensable part of the interconnected steam piping system in thermal power plants, being essential for transport of steam, water and fuel, and therefore critical to the operation and initial setting up of the power project. Technical write-up and pictorial material from the project authority supported this conclusion. 2.9 On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that, functionally and in terms of the language of Heading 9801, these pipe fittings were 'components' required for the initial setting up of a power project and hence squarely fell within the ambit of Heading 9801, notwithstanding their tariff classification under Chapter 73. 2.10 The Tribunal further noted that there is no Heading 9801 in the Central Excise Tariff and that the approach of denying excise exemption by insisting on classification under Heading 9801, which exists only in the Customs Tariff, was contrary to earlier decisions. 2.11 Reliance was placed on prior Tribunal decisions in: (a) Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the only condition under Notification No. 6/2006-CE is that the goods are supplied against ICB for use in specified Mega Power Projects which are exempt from customs duty, and that it was impermissible to import additional conditions not appearing in the excise notification. (b) Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2, where it was held that goods manufactured in India cannot be classified under Heading 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, and that exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE could not be denied on the ground of non-fulfilment of Project Import Regulations if the conditions in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus are otherwise met. (c) Paramount Communication Ltd., where similar denial of Notification No. 6/2006-CE benefit, on the ground that goods did not satisfy Project Import Regulations for Heading 9801, was rejected; the Tribunal held that once the conditions (including the relevant condition corresponding to Mega Power Projects in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus) were satisfied, excise exemption could not be denied, and this view stood affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. 2.12 Applying these precedents, the Tribunal held that the authorities below had wrongly insisted on separate satisfaction of Project Import Regulations or confined Heading 9801 only to machinery under Chapters 84 and 85, contrary to the broad statutory language and settled case law. Conclusions 2.13 The supplies of pipe fittings to the specified Mega Power Projects were made against ICB and were duly supported by project authority certificates; the first condition under Sl. No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE was fulfilled. 2.14 The pipe fittings constituted components required for the initial setting up of power projects and fell within the scope of Heading 9801 for customs purposes; they were thus covered by Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and, if imported, would be exempt from Basic Customs Duty and additional duty. 2.15 Consequently, the requirement under Condition No. 19 of Sl. No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE stood satisfied, and the appellant was fully entitled to the benefit of exemption under that notification. 2.16 The denial of exemption on the grounds that the goods were under Chapter 73 and not under Heading 9801, and the consequent refusal to apply Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, was held to be erroneous and unsustainable in law. Issue 3 - Sustainability of duty demand, interest and penalty Interpretation and reasoning 3.1 The entire duty demand, along with interest and penalty under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was founded on the alleged ineligibility to exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. 3.2 Once the Tribunal concluded that all statutory conditions of Notification No. 6/2006-CE were satisfied and that the appellant was eligible for full exemption, the basis for the demand ceased to exist. Conclusions 3.3 The confirmed demand of central excise duty and interest was held to be without justification and was set aside. 3.4 The penalty imposed under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, being consequential to the untenable duty demand, was also set aside. 3.5 The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.