2016 (12) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R. Singh, DR for the appellant/Department. Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 3.4.2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)-II, Jaipur. The issue involved in the present appeal is the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under Notification No.6/06-CE dated 1.3.2006 in respect of goods supplied t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed goods supplied by the respondent. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order held as below :- ".2 It has been alleged that since item Coal Tar Primer and Coal Tar Tape (both falling under CETH 68071090) have been indigenously manufactured by the appellant it cannot be termed as the goods imported in to India. In this regards I have gone through relevant Notification No.6/2006-CE da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid notifications. Therefore, the above allegation is not sustainable. Further as regards allegation that the appellant has not proved that they have been awarded to supply Coal Tar Tape and Coal Tar Primer, I find that vide Amendment No.(4), dated 30.08.2010 to Project Authority Certificate No.APML/HO/PAC/064 dated 20.05.2010 the appellant was awarded (Name of appellant appearing at Sr.No.15-16 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2002 read with Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2006 as cannot be denied on this point also. Held accordingly." 2. The Revenue is aggrieved on the ground that the classification under Customs Notification is different and as such, the exemption under notification no.6/06-CE cannot be extended to the respondent. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 4. We find....