Sub-contractor supplies for mega power project under ICB tenders: CTH 9801 exemption upheld, extended-period demand quashed.

The dominant issues were whether goods supplied to a Mega Power Project by a sub-contractor were eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 336 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE and whether the demand could invoke the extended period. The Tribunal held that supplies made pursuant to ICB-linked tenders for setting up a mega power project are classifiable under CTH 9801, and where the Project Authority Certificate specifically identifies the supplier as sub-contractor and certifies end-use for the project, exemption cannot be denied; the impugned denial was set aside and the appeal allowed on merits. It further held that, since duty-free clearances were disclosed in monthly returns, suppression was not established, so the extended-period demand was time-barred and was quashed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether exemption under Sl. No. 336 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE (for "all goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding") can be availed when the manufacturer supplies goods to contractors executing Mega Power Projects under ICB and the manufacturer is a sub-contractor/sub-vendor mentioned in the Project Authority's Certificate.

(ii) Whether denial of exemption under Sl. No. 336 on the ground that the excisable goods are not "classifiable under CTH 9801" is sustainable, having regard to the notification condition that the goods, if imported, must be exempt from customs duties and applicable customs conditions apply mutatis mutandis.

(iii) Whether the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period is time-barred when the exempt clearances were disclosed in monthly returns and no suppression is established.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Eligibility of a sub-contractor for Sl. No. 336 exemption (ICB supplies)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): Sl. No. 336 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE covers "all goods" under "Any Chapter" when "supplied against International Competitive Bidding", subject to the condition that the goods, if imported, would be exempt from customs and additional duty; and where such customs exemption is conditional, those conditions apply mutatis mutandis for excise.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found it undisputed that the goods were supplied for Mega Power Projects and that supply occurred "against the ICB related tenders", though routed through contractors. The Project Authority's Certificate expressly recorded the sub-contractor details, thereby linking the appellant's supplies to the ICB/project procurement chain. On these facts, the Court held the appellant could not be denied exemption merely because it was not the main ICB bidder or was placed lower in the vendor chain.

Conclusions: A supplier mentioned as sub-contractor in the Project Authority's Certificate, supplying goods used for ICB-executed Mega Power Projects through the main contractor, satisfies the "supplied against International Competitive Bidding" requirement and is eligible for the Sl. No. 336 exemption.

Issue (ii): Denial of exemption on the ground of non-classification under CTH 9801

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court read Sl. No. 336 with its condition (Condition 41) requiring that the goods, if imported, should be exempt from customs duties, and that any conditions attached to the customs exemption apply mutatis mutandis. The Court noted the notification text covers "all goods" under "Any Chapter".

Interpretation and reasoning: The demand proceeded on the basis that exemption was unavailable because the goods were allegedly not classifiable under CTH 9801 of the Customs Tariff. The Court rejected this basis in substance by holding that the exemption is available for items supplied for the Mega Power Project under the ICB procurement framework, and that the certificate-based linkage to the Mega Project/ICB supply is decisive. The Court accepted that the relevant certification and project coverage were not in dispute and treated the project-based exemption logic as applicable to the goods supplied, rather than requiring the excisable goods to be denied for not being individually classifiable under a particular customs heading.

Conclusions: Denial of Sl. No. 336 benefit solely on the ground that the goods are not classifiable under CTH 9801 was held unsustainable on the facts where supplies were certified and made for listed Mega Power Projects under ICB, satisfying the notification's project/ICB-linked conditions.

Issue (iii): Limitation-whether extended period demand is barred

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered the applicability of time bar in the context of extended period invocation, focusing on whether suppression was made out, and on the fact of disclosure through monthly returns.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that the clearances without payment of excise duty were "properly reflected" in the monthly returns. On that basis, the Court held that "no case of suppression has been made out". Consequently, invocation of the extended period was impermissible.

Conclusions: The confirmed demand for the extended period was held to be hit by limitation and was set aside on the ground that the exempt clearances were disclosed in returns and suppression was not established.

---