TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....name of the company. We allow the Miscellaneous Applications for change of cause title based on the records as filed by the appellant. 2. The Present two appeals are filed against 2 separate Orders-inOriginal covering two different periods having the common issue. Hence, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed by this common order. The details of the two appeals are given in table below:- Appeal No. Appeal No. E/85/2009 Appeal No. E/302/2009 Period of demand March 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to May 2007 Demand confirmed Rs.2,42,51,622/- Rs.86.57,991/- Order-in-Original No./date Order-in-Original No. 1011Commr/BOL/08 dated 03.11.2008 Order-in-Original No. 36.Commr/BOL/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notices covering different periods proposing to deny exemption on the above ground and to demand differential duty on the clearances made. The Commissioner while adjudicating the Show Cause Notices by 2 separate orders covering different periods has confirmed the duty demand. The main finding given by the Commissioner as evident from the impugned orders is that the appellant being the supplier of the goods to Jindal Power Limited, the recipient of the goods, having not participated in International Competitive Bidding, is not eligible for the exemption. The Commissioner has held that the notification does not mention that the supply of goods against ICB by a sub-contractor is eligible. Hence, the present appeals before the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer Ltd. (Project Authority) for setting up of the 1000MW Raigarh Thermal Power Project in Chhattisgarh which has received the status of Mega Power Project from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Power. BHEL had sub-contracted the Appellant for the supply of boilers and parts for setting up of the plant. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Toshniwal Indus Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 179 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the issue regarding claim of benefit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for the removal of manufactured goods to a mega power project, was allowed even though they were sub-contractors and had not participated in the ICB. It was held that since the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew there is no condition stipulated in the notification that the person claiming benefit for the goods cleared should have been the bidder in ICB for the mega power project. In our view so long as the goods are supplied to such contract awarded to a person who took part in the International Competitive Bidding, the benefit is not deniable. 9. We further note from the records that Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) had participated in the ICB and entered into an agreement with M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (Project Authority) for setting up of the 1000MW Raigarh Thermal Power Project in Chhattisgarh. This project received the status of Mega Power Project from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Power. BHEL had sub-contracted the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to procure such goods locally without payment of excise duty if BHEL so desires and BHEL opted for local procurement from the assessee-appellants. So, naturally the assessee-appellants should be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sr. No. 91). Prima facie, the deemed export benefits dealt within para 8.6.1 and 8.6.2 deal with incentive granted by DGFT and not exemption granted by Ministry of Finance and there is no reason to refer to those conditions so long as they are not referred to in the Notification claimed. The main point to be noticed is that relief from excise duty is not granted through the mechanism of deemed export but administered through exemption notification issued. We note that Revenue has not mad....