2012 (12) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bidding subject to Condition No. 19 in the notification. The said condition is that the goods in question should have been eligible for exemption from duties of Customs when imported into India. These goods were supplied to execute a mega power project certified by Government of India in Ministry of Finance to be eligible for exemption from customs duty for goods imported for executing the project, in terms of exemption at Sr. No. 400(b) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The said exemption for goods imported was available subject to condition No. 86 in the said notification. The said condition of the notification is re-produced below :- "86(a)     If an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ong with interest and penalties. On Adjudication, the demand was confirmed along with appropriate interest and a penalty of Rs. 9,98,709/- imposed on the Appellants under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the order the Appellants filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) did not give any relief to the Appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellants have filed this Appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The contention of the Appellants is that they satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sr. No. 91) as specified at Condition No. 19 read with Condition No. 86 prescribed in Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sr. No. 400), dated 1-3-2002, in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) (ii)    CST Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 513 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. The ld. A.R. for Revenue submits that the name of the Appellant was not mentioned in the certificates. Further payment certificates as envisaged in para 8.6.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy. In fact, the Revenue contends that the Appellants were not approved as a sub-contractor. Thus Revenue argues that the Appellants are neither a contractor who participated in International Competitive Bidding nor sub-contractor for supply of the goods and hence they are not eligible for the exemption under the said notification. 6. We have considered arguments on both the sides. It is already decided by the Tribunal that it is not necessary that the manufacturer....