https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783842 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. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783842 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783842