TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urer of excisable goods like angles, channels, beams etc. SSIL submitted a letter dt. 31-3-2006 to the authorities that they have a contract with M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) for supply of finished products like angles, channels, beams etc. for mega power project which was awarded to BHEL. The letter also indicated that SSIL would be seeking the exemption from payment of duty as given under Notification No. 6/2006, dt. 1-3-2006 under Sl. No. 91. Further claiming the said exemption, the goods were cleared to BHEL. Investigation was conducted by the authorities and on conclusion of the investigation, Revenue authorities were of the view that appellant SSIL is not eligible for availing the benefit of the Notification No. 6/2006 on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms and the additional customs duty leviable under Customs Tariff Act when imported into India, there won't be any duty. After such submission, he draws our attention to the Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and submits that at entry No. 400, goods required for setting up mega power project are exempted from payment of duty subject to the conditions mentioned at Sl. No. 86 which reads as to indicate that officer not below the rank Jt. Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power certifies that the imports are for mega power projects. It is his submission that general reading of the said notification clearly indicate that the goods imported for mega power project plant to be erected by BHEL is eligible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the instant case, the goods supplied by the appellant/assessee happens to be angles, beams, channels falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered as materials falling under heading No. 98.01. He would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Ginni Filaments Ltd. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)] to submit that notification has to be read strictly so far as eligibility is concerned. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant company is 6. eligible for benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. for the clearances made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds supplied against International Competitive Bidding Nil 19 and the condition attached thereto is read as under : - Condition 19. If the goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. It can be seen from the above reproduced entry No. 91 of Notification No. 9. 6/2006 that goods of any chapter if supplied against international competitive bidding, exemption is available subject to the condition as reproduced above. The condition No. 19 requires all the goods are to be exempted under the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the same, BHEL appointed M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. as sub-contractor. M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. in turn had procured angles, beams, channels etc from the appellant for execution of such meca power project. We find that the SSIL has not participated in the international competitive bidding, but had cleared the said goods to M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. for execution of mega power project. This being undisputed fact, we find that the decision of this Bench in the case of CST Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the issue. We may reproduce the said ratio which reads as under :- The learned Advocate brought to our notice the relevant conditions of the "6. exemption Notification. In terms of Notification No. 48/2004, against Sl. No. 301, "all goods sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not entitled for exemption on the ground they are not the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor will be having hundreds of sub-contractors in Mega Projects. In our view, inasmuch as the appellants had supplied the goods to M/s. BHEL, who are the bidders of International Competitive Bidding, the condition of the Notification is satisfied and there is no justification for denying the exemption notification to the appellant. The Tribunal, in the case of Automatic Electric Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 524 (Tri.-Mumbai), has held that the benefit of exemption under Notification 108/95-C.E. is available to a sub-contractor when M/s. BHEL is the main contractor of an approved proj....