2012 (12) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....licant supplied TMT Bars falling under CHS 7214 20 90 at nil rate of duty to M/s. Nagarjuna Thermal Power Project set up by M/s. Nagarjuna Power Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, Karnataka, an inter-state Thermal Power Plant of capacity of 1015 MW which qualifies as a Mega Power Project as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 400). The goods were supplied to the project without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of the Project Authority's Certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Nagarjuna Power Corporation Ltd. vide Reference No. NPCL/HO/PAC/001-A, dated 6-9-2007 vis-à-vis the amendment No. 4 of the Project Authority certificate under reference No. NPCL/HO/PAC/001-A dated 6-9-2007. In accordance with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods could not be classified under Chapter No. 98 of the C.T.A., 1975 and attracted exemption owing to the fact that the Chapter deals with only project imports of certain commodities mainly, all items of machinery or raw materials for manufacture of those machinery. TMT Bar is neither machinery as described under Ch. Hd. No. 98.01 of the CTA nor raw material for manufacture of those machinery. The Notification No. 91/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 which was applicable to holder of Advance Licence. The appellant has not produced any Advance Licence in order to qualify for exemption under the said exemption Notification. In the event of Customs duty not being fully exempted, the condition of zero Customs duty has not been fulfilled in terms of N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not acceptable in such cases of supplies to the project covered by the aforesaid Notifications. The question of having Advance Licence cannot be made applicable in the present case. 3.4 The contention is that before the goods were cleared from the factory to M/s. Nagarjun Power Corporation vide their letter dated 28-11-2008 it was informed to the concerned Asstt. Commissioner that they would send the TMT bars to M/s. Nagarjun Power Corporation Ltd., a mega power project against international bidding and that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 (Sl. No. 91) by the certificate dated 11-4-2007. The contention is that in a similar case of Sarita Steel & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Visakh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v. CCE & C, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) (b)     CCE, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 4.2 The contention is that not only prima facie case but balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the interim order. In support of their contention they have placed reliance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Guntur v. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 135 (AP). 5.1 Undisputedly the applicant supplied the TMT bars to M/s. Nagarjun Thermal Power Project, an inter-state thermal power plant which qualifies as mega power project at nil rate of duty by availing the benefit of Notification 6/2006. The applicant produced a cer....