2014 (3) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, the Ld. Lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand of Rs.9,55,304/- along with interest thereon confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28/06/2013 against the appellant M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Nashik, by denying the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. The adjudicating authority has further imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the appellant had supplied Electrically Operated Travelling (EOT) cranes to NTPC, BARH Super Thermal Power Project as a sub-contractor ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l in an identical matter pertaining to Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. vide order No. A/983-984/13/EB/C-II dated 08/11/2013 had considered this issue and held that if the goods are supplied, under a contract awarded under International Competitive Bidding procedure, by the sub-contractor, the benefit of excise duty exemption cannot be denied so long as the similar goods imported under exempt from customs duty. The ratio of the above case would apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay. 4. The Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. However, he confirms that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. L....