TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders of the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the confirmation of duty demands amounting to Rs. 45,28,873/- along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2.1 The appellant M/s. H.D. Fire Protect Pvt. Ltd. Are manufacturers of nozzles and fire fighting equipments falling under Chapter 83 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. They undertook supply of these goods to various contractors who were awarded contracts for setting up of Ultra Mega Power Projects. The appellant also claimed the benefit of duty exemption under Notification 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said project and in the event of non-compliance, the project developer will pay the differential duty. Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01/03/2002 also grants exemption to goods required for setting up of a mega power project vide serial No. 400 of the table annexed to the said Notification subject to condition No. 86 and the said condition stipulates that, an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power certifies that the power purchasing State has constituted a Regulatory Commission with full powers to fix tariffs and the power purchasing State undertakes, in principle, to privatise distribution in all cities, in that State, each of which has a population of more than one million, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho participates in the bidding process. However, in the contract awarded, the appellant's name figures as a sub-contractor. The Notification does not stipulate that the supplier of the goods should participate in the international competitive bidding procedure. The Notification merely says that the contracts are awarded under international competitive bidding process which has been done in the instant case. 3.2 As regards the contention that similar goods, when imported, are not eligible for customs duty exemption, the learned counsel submits that this contention of the Revenue is incorrect inasmuch as vide serial No. 400 of the table annexed to the Notification 21/2002, the goods supplied for mega power projects are exempt from duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 21/2002. In such circumstances, the benefit of Notification 6/2006 cannot be denied to the appellant. Accordingly, he pleads that the impugned order be set aside. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and appellate authority. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Notification 6/2006 nowhere stipulates that the supplier of the goods should participate in the tariff based competitive bidding. The only condition stipulated is that the ultra mega power projects for which the goods are supplied and from which the power procurement had been tied up should be through tariff based competitive bidding and an officer no....